Cases

SMITH, Chief Judge. A jury convicted Muhammad Anwar of : (1) conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and controlled substance analogues, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(c), and 846, and (2) conspiracy to commit money la

RILEY, Circuit Judge. Muhammad Anwar (Anwar) was charged with and convicted of conspiring to defraud the government by aiding and abetting others to enter into fraudulent marriages between 1993 and 2003, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aiding and abetting a foreign national and a United States citizen in the act of entering into a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of ev

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-3726 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Muhammad J. Anwar appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeMatteo, J.H.O.), dated January 6, 1988, which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the appellant’s position, the evidence adduced at the hearing to determine the validity of the service of process clearly supports the tri

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2993 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Muhammad Masood llllllllll

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge Umar Muhammad (“Muhammad”) appeals his convictions of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action following a jury trial. Muhammad claims that errors during closing argument and in the admission of. evidence at trial made it less likely that the jury would accept his defense that he was not the shooter, an essentia

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District  UMAR MUHAMMAD,   WD81319 Appellant,  OPINION FILED: v.

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner seeks review of an order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings, In re Mirza, No. A 73 027 308 (B.I.A. May 6, 2005), following an earlier order of the BIA that, inter alia, denied a motion to remand for adjustment of status, In re Mirza, No. A 73 027 308 (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.<

160 F.3d 170 1999 A.M.C. 380 OST-WEST-HANDEL BRUNO BISCHOFF GMBH, Plaintiff,Banchory Shipping Company, Limited, Intervenor-Appellant,Banco Wiese Limitado, Intervenor-Appellee,Siddiqui Owais; Syed Sajjud-Ue-Hassan; Syed Zaidi HussainItiba; Ahmad Ashfaq; Ali Anwar; Muhammad Lal; MohammadWazir; Muhammad Ilyas; Souza Jose; Shaikh MuhammadIsmail; Zafar Iqbal; Younos S/O Kundan Masih; Shams

(2008) Brenda ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. Jeanne WOODFORD, et al., Defendants. No. 1:05-CV-01104 OWW GSA. United States District Court, E.D. California. February 20, 2008. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS GARY S. AUSTIN, United States Magistrate Judge. INTRODUCTION On December 13, 2007, Plaintiff

450 F.3d 944 Stefan SCHNEIDER; Anwar Tandar; Komsu Mamuya; Muhammad Aijaz Sattar; Sandeep Harbans Jain; Mahesh Krishnamoorthy; Saravanan Kasthuri; Bogdan Nedelescu, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Michael CHERTOFF,* Secretary of Homeland Security; Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., Acting Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-A

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Stefan Schneider, Anwar Tandar, Komsu Mamuya, and Sara-vanan Kasthuri (“Immigrant Doctors”) are medical doctors who practice in designated medical shortage areas. The Immigrant Doctors seek adjustment to lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status based on their employment. The Immigrant Doctors brought an action against the Secretary

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING BENCH TRIAL LUCY H. KOH, United, States District Judge Plaintiff Abdullah Sillah (“Plaintiff’) brings this wage and hour suit against Plaintiffs former employers Command International Security Services (“CISS”), Nafees Memon (“Nafees”),1 and Waqas *896“Nick” Memon (“Waqa

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT THE SALVATION ARMY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT JOYCE STEFANSKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, CAROL PREMO, ANWAR NAJOR-DURACK, PHYLIS I. VROOM, SHAWNA J. LEE, MARGARET BRUNHOFER, AND ANTONIO GONZALES-PRENDES MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.<

OPINION ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge Because Anwar Al-Aulaqi was a terrorist leader of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, the United States intentionally targeted and killed him with a drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011. The missile also killed Samir Khan, who was riding in the same vehicle. Both men were U.S. citizens. Two wee

DAVIS, Judge. Joohi Q. Hosain (formerly Joohi Malik) appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Kahl, J.) entered in a custody dispute in which appellant, the mother, and appellee, Anwar Malik, the father, have been battling for sole custody of their minor child. By this order, the circuit court declined to assume jurisdiction in the matter and granted comity

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 19-2174, 19-2185 & 19-2186 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADEL DAOUD, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for t

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 19-2174, 19-2185 & 19-2186 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADEL DAOUD, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for t

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 19-2174, 19-2185 & 19-2186 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADEL DAOUD, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for t

Universal Investment Advisory SA; UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE RETURN SP; VAQUERO MASTER EM CREDIT FUND LTD; HARSHIL KANTILAL KOTHARI; FOOTBRIDGE CAPITAL, LLC; and GROWTH CREDIT FUND IC; Plaintiffs, againstBakrie Telecom PTE, Ltd., PT BAKRIE TELECOM TBK, PT BAKRIE NETWORK, PRT BAKRIE CONNECTIVITY, PT BAKRIE & BROTHERS TBK, ANINDYA NOVYAN