Cases

934 F.2d 1264 Ricciov.U.S.** NO. 89-7698 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. MAY 07, 1991 1 Appeal From: N.D.Ala. 2

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

818 F.2d 872 *Ricciov.U.S. 86-7541 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. 5/4/87 1 N.D.Ala. AFFIRMED 2 ---------------

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, District Judge. BACKGROUND On November 20, 2012, ten defendants were charged in a seven-count indictment (the “Indictment”) for crimes in connection with them alleged participation in an internet pharmacy scheme. According to the Indictment, the allegations of which we accept as true for purposes of the present motion, United States

OPINION OF THE COURT HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. John Riccio appeals his judgment of conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. We will affirm. Riccio argues that the Government failed to introduce sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed a firearm in

OPINION OF THE COURT HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. John Riccio appeals his judgment of conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. We will affirm. Riccio argues that the Government failed to introduce sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed a firearm in

ORDER OF COURT BESOSA, District Judge. Appellant John L. Riccio was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by submitting a false statement on a background check form (SF-86) to his former employer, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Mr. Riccio was later sentenced to *40a three-month prison term, with two years of supervised release. In

567 F.3d 39 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John L. RICCIO, Defendant, Appellant. No. 07-2604. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard March 4, 2008. Decided June 3, 2009. Kathleen J. Hill, for appellant. Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Robert Clark Corrente, United States Attorney, a

529 F.3d 40 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John L. RICCIO, Defendant, Appellant. No. 07-2604. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard March 4, 2008. Decided June 17, 2008. *41 Kathleen J. Hill for appellant. Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Robert

648 F.Supp. 1280 (1986) UNITED STATES of America v. William David RICCIO. No. CR 84-AR-104-NE. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama. November 21, 1986. Jerry Quick, Trussville, Ala., for Riccio. MEMORANDUM OPINION ACKER, District Judge. Because William David Riccio is in federal custody as a result of his conviction for a crime u

786 F.2d 1178 U.S.v.Riccio 85-7290 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. 3/14/86 1 N.D.Ala. AFFIRMED

790 F.2d 88 U.S.v.Riccio 85-7290 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. 4/21/86 N.D.Ala., 786 F.2d 1178

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

CHILSON, Judge. The appellant, Riccio, was indicted, tried, and convicted of the armed robbery of the Burns National Bank of Durango, Colorado, on June 11, 1982, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) and (e). Prior to trial, Riccio moved to suppress certain evidence seized by police officers from Riccio’s re

823 F.2d 558 Riccio (William David)v.U.S. NO. 86-7541 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. JUN 29, 1987 Appeal From: N.D.Ala., 818 F.2d 872 1 DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Diane M. Riccio, : Appellant : : v. : No. 636 C.D. 2021 : Newtown Township Zoning : Submitted: December 4, 2023 Hearing Board and Lawrence and : Alicia Robinson : BEF

JOANN RICCIO, EXECUTRIX (ESTATE OF THERESA RICCIO) v. THE BRISTOL HOSPITAL, INC. (SC 20529) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js. Syllabus Pursuant to the accidental failure of suit statute (§ 52-592 (a)), ‘‘[i]f any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits . . . because the action has been .

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-1463 _____________ MAUREEN RICCIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant v. SENTRY CREDIT, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-25 On Appeal from the United States

MEMORANDUM OPINION NAPOLI, District Judge. This is a civil action brought by the United States against five individual residents of Illinois, in which the government alleges that the defendants were, and on information and belief, still are, engaged in the business of accepting wagers, or receiving wagers for or on behalf of persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers. The government further alleg