Cases

540 U.S. 829 SINGHv.HAMLET, WARDEN. No. 02-10487. Supreme Court of United States. October 6, 2003. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 9th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. This is a habeas case filed by a state prisoner, Marquis Rashawn Douglas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Douglas was convicted by a jury in Napa County Superior Court of second degree murder (Cal. Pen.Code § 187), see CT 544 (count one); shooting into an inhabited house (Cal. Pen.Code § 246), see CT 549

689 F.Supp.2d 1250 (2010) Lakwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Ben CURRY,[1] Warden, Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, Respondent. No. 2:08-cv-00211-JKS. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 14, 2010. *1251 Lakwinder Singh, Soledad, CA, pro se. Paul Arvin Bernardino, California Attorney Gener

¶ 78. DAVID T. PROSSER, J. (concurring). This complicated case presents numerous issues for the court. Some are factual; some are legal. Sorting out these issues is indispensable to understanding this case. Recognizing the multitude of fact situations that will be affected by our decision is critical in explaining the law. r-H ¶ 79. The petitioner, Aman D. Singh (Singh), has

GUNDRUM, J. ¶ 1. Aman Singh appeals pro se the circuit court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that retroactive application of a law first enacted after he committed crimes relevant to this appeal violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Wisconsin constitutions by denying *524him the opportunities for early release from pri

MEMORANDUM ** Michael Manjeet Singh appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction by a jury for three counts of first-degree murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition. Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir.2003). We review the petition unde

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma 'pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma 'pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

— Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to set bail upon Queens County indictment No. 2733/00. Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; see People

— Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to set bail upon Queens County indictment No. 2733/00. Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; see People

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Queens County indictment No. 10226/14. Adjudged that the writ is sustained, without costs or disbursements, and bail on Queens County indictment No. 10226/14 is reduced to the sum of $25,000, which may be posted in the form of an insurance company bail bond in that sum or by depositing that

LAY, Circuit Judge: Jaitsen J. Singh, a California state prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse and grant the petition. Factual and Procedural Background This ease arises out of a series of bizarre events culminating in Singh’s convictions for murder and for solicitation

[Cite as Two Brothers Market, L.L.C. v. Singh, 2025-Ohio-1803.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO TWO BROTHERS MARKET, LLC, : APPEAL NO. C-240415 TRIAL NO. A-2300016 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. :

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to set bail upon Queens County indictment No. 2733/00. Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; see People e

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to set bail upon Queens County indictment No. 2733/00. Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; see People e