Cases

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 29, 2022 No. 04-22-00205-CR Martin PEREZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 28, 2022 No. 04-22-00205-CR Martin PEREZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT VICLENA MARGARITA GONZALEZ CARRASCO, Appellant, v. MARTIN JOSE PEREZ JIMENEZ, Appellee. Nos. 4D2023-0461 and 4D2023-3105 [March 5, 2025] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Browar

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT VICLENA MARGARITA GONZALEZ CARRASCO, Appellant, v. MARTIN JOSE PEREZ JIMENEZ, Appellee. Nos. 4D2023-0461 and 4D2023-3105 [March 5, 2025] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Browar

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 21, 2022 Nos. 04-22-00513-CR, 04-22-00514-CR, 04-22-00515-CR, 04-22-00516-CR, 04-22-00517-CR, 04-22-00518-CR, and 04-22-00519-CR The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Jaime Francisc

NUMBER 13-21-00296-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG MARTIN PEREZ LEAL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court of DeWitt

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13-21-00296-CR Martin Perez Leal v. The State of Texas On Appeal from the 24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 21-07-13,626 JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENT

NUMBER 13-21-00296-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG MARTIN PEREZ LEAL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court

ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO EN EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL III CORPORACIÓN PARA LA CERTIORARI SUPERVISIÓN Y SEGURO procedente del DE COOPERATIVAS DE Tribunal de PUERTO RICO, EN SU Primera Instancia CAPACIDAD DE SINDICO KLCE202400282 Sala Superior de ADMINIST

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 04a0427p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X

5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21 3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH  (/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU )LOH 1DPH DS 81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6 )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB s2+1 7 0$57,1 ; 3HWLWLRQHU$SSHOODQW    1R Y

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO MARTINEZ-PEREZ,  No. 03-70531 Petitioner, Agency No. v.  A36-908-119 ALBERTO R. GONZALES,* Attorney AMENDED General,

MEMORANDUM *** Rafael Martin-Perez appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 438 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm. Martin-Perez contends that he is entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture. We disagree. Because Martin-Pere

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ARTEMIO PEREZ-MARTIN,  No. 03-70923 Petitioner, v.  Agency No. A92-958-263 JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.  On Petition for Review of an Order of t

OPINION THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Martin Perez-Corona pleaded guilty to a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He had a prior Arizona State conviction for the unlawful use of means of transportation. The plea agreement he entered classified that offense as an aggravated felony.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

OPINION MOORE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellant John T. Martin (“Martin”) appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Martin asserts that he is actually innocent of the federal crime of arson as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) because the property he bombed lacked a sufficient connection to interstate commerce.

SUAREZ, J. Andrew J. Anthony appeals from a final order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. The only issue raised on appeal was whether the trial court correctly found that the complaint was not filed within the requisite four-year statute of limitations. We find that the complaint was timely filed and therefore reverse. In 2004, Raquel Anthony, the appellant’s now former wife, worked in his law offi