Cases

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

OPINION PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Edward Schad is scheduled to be executed on October 9, 2013, in Arizona for the 1978 murder of Lorimer Grove. His efforts to reopen the district court’s 2006 habeas judgment by invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) have been the subject of another appeal, No. 13-16895, in a separate district court action.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD HAROLD SCHAD, No. 13-16978 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. and 2:13-cv-01962- ROS ROBERT GLEN JONES, JR., Intervenor-Plaintiff, OPINION v. JANICE K. BREWER, Governor o

FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 24 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS EUGENE CREECH, No. 24-1000

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0122p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │

THOMAS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The Arizona Supreme Court unconstitutionally excluded mitigating evidence from its consideration because the evidence was not causally related to the crimes. As a result, Poyson was deprived of his right to an individualized capital sentencing determination under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Penry v

KELLER, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART: I concur in the majority's opinion in part, but dissent from the majority's analysis of the alleged unanimity error. I dissent from this portion of the opinion for two reasons: (1) I believe this case, once again, delves further into a court-made *366con

ORDER Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States District Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner Alejandro Enrique Ramirez Umaña’s unopposed motion to place the above-captioned action in abeyance. (Doc. No. 45). I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 19, 2010, a jury convicted Uma-ña of four capital offenses: two counts of murder in aid of racketeering, 18

THOMAS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The Arizona Supreme Court unconstitutionally excluded mitigating evidence from its consideration because the evidence was not causally related to the crimes. As a result, Poyson was deprived of his right to an individualized capital sentencing determination under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Penry v

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERALD ROSS PIZZUTO, Jr., No. 24-6233 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 1:22-cv-00452- BLW v. RANDY VALLEY, Warden, Idaho OPINION Maximum Security Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States D

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0047p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plain

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0006p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plai

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1767-13T2 A-1768-13T2 A-1769-13T2 A-1770-13T2

[Cite as DeLost v. Ohio Edison Co., 2012-Ohio-4561.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT RAYMOND M. DELOST, et al. ) CASE NO. 10 MA 162 ) PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS ) ) VS.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERNESTO SALGADO MARTINEZ, No. 08-99009 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cv-01561-EHC CHARLES L. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presid

HINES, Presiding Justice. This case presents the question of whether it is unconstitutional for the State of Georgia to maintain the confidentiality of the names and other identifying information of the persons and entities involved in executions, including those who manufacture the drug or drugs to be used.1 We hold that it is not, and we reverse the ruling of the Superior Court of Fulton County i

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 03-4829 TERRANCE SMITH, a/k/a Ty, Defendant-Appellant.  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT ALLEN POYSON, No. 10-99005 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-00534-NVW CHARLES L. RYAN, ORDER AND Respondent-Appellee. AMENDED OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, Distri

Opinion by Judge HAWKINS; Dissent by Judge NOONAN. MICHALE DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge: Appellant Terrance Hofus (“Hofus”) appeals his jury trial conviction for one count of attempting to coerce and entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He contends the jury instructions inadequately defined the “substantial step” requirement and failed to require unanimity as to what c