Cases

*707DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. #10) IN ITS ENTIRETY; OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. # 11); DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. #2); DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FOR-MA PAUPERIS; TERMINATION ENTRY

[Cite as State v. Rodriguez, 2014-Ohio-2583.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2013-11-011 Plaintiff-Appellee, : OPINION

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-1697 ____________ CHRISTOPHER THIEME, Appellant v. WARDEN FORT DIX FCI ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, dissenting: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.INTRODUCTION ..466 II.THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM. 467 A. Introduction. 467 B. Law.468 1. General Equal Protection Principles .468 2. Equal Protection Challenges of Plea Bargaining _470 C. Facts.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0230p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plai

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS PAUL PEREZ, JR., § No. 08-24-00101-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § 264th District Court THE STATE OF TEXAS,

*********************************************** 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

FLYNN, J. It has been usual for trial judges, when instructing jurors on how to weigh the credibility of witnesses, to tell them to consider whether the witness has an interest of whatever sort in the outcome of the trial that might influence or color the witness' testimony. In the petitioner's criminal trial, however, the jury never received important evidence of a cooperating witness'

Opinion filed April 24, 2025 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-24-00011-CR __________ ROGER SCOTT WILSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor C

Opinion filed April 24, 2025 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-24-00011-CR __________ ROGER SCOTT WILSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor C

349 F.Supp.2d 278 (2004) Matthew RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. State of CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and in their individual and official capacities, Warden Nelvin A. Levester, Lieutenant Mark Murray, Major Paul Bradnan, Captain Nelson Rodriguez, Defendants. No. 3:02CV884(DJS). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. December 10, 2004.

OPINION & ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiff Kenneth Samuels (“Plaintiff’) brings this action against defendants Brian Fischer (“Fischer”), Albert Prack (“Prack”), Philip Heath (“Heath”), William Keyser (“Keyser”), Michael Barnes (“Barnes”), Corey Gamble (“Gamble”), Ronald Brereton (“Brereton”), Kenneth White (‘White”), Brian Schrader (“Schrad

ED CARNES, Chief Judge: From time to time we have all followed the advice of Oscar Wilde and gotten rid of temptation by yielding to it. 1 Yielding to the temptation to commit an act that the law forbids can lead to bad consequences, including imprisonment. Prison officials have the duty to reduce the temptation for prisoners t

Order Dismissing Equal Protection Claim and Denying Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 56] JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge. This civil-rights and employment-discrimination action arises out of the termination of Michael Murray’s employment as a casework specialist in the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). Murray pleads what the -parties brief, and this court construes, as three federal claims unde

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Classification/Desc Year Corpus Source or Source Type Excerpt of Concordance Line Contextual summary ription As we said in both Benoit and Ros

Opinion PALMER, J. This appeal requires us to decide whether Public Acts 1995, No. 95-255, § 1 (P.A. 95-255),1 which *806amended General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 54-125a2 by *807increasing from 50 percent to

USCA11 Case: 17-15470 Date Filed: 05/06/2021 Page: 1 of 98 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15470 ________________________ D.C. Docket

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., District Judge. Keith Ayotte, an inmate at the Maine State Prison (Prison) in Warren, filed a lawsuit against Patricia Barnhart, Dwight Fowles, Martin Magnusson, David Cutler, and Curtis Doyle in their individual capacities as prison officials for the Maine State Prison system. Mr. Ayotte claims the Defendants failed t

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on SWEPI’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, filed May 31, 2014 (Doc. 21)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on November 3, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court may consider evidence outside the pleadings to determine issues of justiciability; (ii) whether Plaintiff