Cases

DECISION AND ORDER JONATHAN W. FELDMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. Preliminary Statement Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), the Government commenced this action in rem for the forfeiture of the sum of $60,020.00 in United States Currency seized from Claimant Joel Luke on January 12, 2008 at the Greater Rochester International Airport. The Court conducted a bench tr

ORDER CLARENCE COOPER, District Judge. The above-styled civil forfeiture action is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Claimant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. No. 41]; (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Claimant’s First Amendment to Answer to Complaint for Forfeiture [Doc. No. 63]; (3) Claimant’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Out of Time Motion to Suppress [Doc. No. 64]; and (4

Judge STRAUB, in a separate opinion, concurs in the judgment and in the majority opinion in part. KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Defendant David Parse appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York following a jury trial before William H. Pauley III, Judge, convicting him on one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2, and on

662 F.3d 610 (2011) UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Sanjaya BAHEL, Defendant-Appellant.[*] Docket No. 08-3327-cr. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: July 8, 2009, and January 13, 2011. Decided: October 26, 2011. *616 Henry E. Mazurek, Clayman & Rosenberg LLP, New York, NY, for Defe

644 F.3d 1213 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin J. BRADLEY, Jr., Bio-Med Plus, Inc., Albert L. Tellechea, Martin J. Bradley, III., Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin J. Bradley, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin J. Bradley, III., Defendant, Norma Bradley, Interested Party-Appellant. United States of

Tax Refund Suit; STARS Structured Transaction Between BB & T Bank and Bar-clays Bank; Availability of Foreign Tax Credits From Payment of United Kingdom Taxes; Deductions for Interest and Transaction Costs; Economic Substance Doctrine Applied to Trust and Loan Components of Transaction; Assessment of Penalties. OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. In this tax refund case, t

513 F.3d 62 (2008) UNITED STATES of America v. Fernando JIMENEZ, Appellant in Case No: 05-4098 United States of America v. Ana Martell, Appellant in Case No: 05-4099 United States of America v. Kathy Giunta, Appellant in Case No: 05-4106 United States of America v. Luis Nieves, Appellant in Case No: 05-4107 United States of America v. Rene Abreu, Appellant in Case No: 05-4157.

Corrected In the United States Court of Federal Claims Sub-Master Docket No. 17-9001L (Filed: October 28, 2022) ********************************** ) Taking via government-induced flooding IN RE UPSTREAM ADDICKS AND ) of private property; post-trial decision on BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD- ) just compensation for six b

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Sub-Master Docket No. 17-9001L (Filed: October 28, 2022) ********************************** ) Taking via government-induced flooding IN RE UPSTREAM ADDICKS AND ) of private property; post-trial decision on BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD- ) just compensation for six bellwether CONTROL RESERVOIRS

651 F.Supp.2d 219 (2009) SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. Action No. 05-2575 (KSH). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. August 28, 2009. *221 William J. O'Shaughnessy, Richard Hernandez, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, Charles W. Hall, William S. Lee, Nancy T.

[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-14934 JUNE 29, 2011 ________________________ JOHN LEY

OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. Before the court is a dispute involving a contract between the United States, acting through the Department of State (“DOS”), and Kullman Industries, Inc. (“KI”), a company now no longer in business, which at the time specialized in large-scale modular construction. The contract obli

747 F.Supp.2d 49 (2010) FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY ADVISOR A FUND, LLC, BY the TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Fidelity High Tech Advisor a Fund, LLC, by the Tax Matters Partner, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. Civil Nos. 05-40151-FDS, 06-40130-FDS, 06-40243-FDS, 06-40244-FDS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 19, 2025 Decided September 2, 2025 No. 25-5122 CLIMATE UNITED FUND, ET AL., APPELLEES v. CITIBANK, N.A., APPELLANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LEE M. ZELDIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, APPE

OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. American Pelagic Fishing Company (“APFC”) brings this action pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Liability was previously determined in favor of plaintiff in American Pelagic Fishing Co., LP v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 36 (2001) (“American Pelagic I”). Familiarity with the facts set out in that opinion is assumed. Trial on damages was held in

CORRECTED OPINION & ORDER1 KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge: Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ...596 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .. .597 A. Pre-Trial Proceedings ... 597 B. The Trial ... 600 III. FINDINGS OF FACT ... 601 A. Public Health Issues Associated w

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. BACKGROUND 370 A. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine 372 B. Has Defendant Furnished an Accounting? 373 II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 374 A. Claims 1 and 2 375 B. Claims 3 and 4 378 III. THE NON-ACCOUNTING CLAIMS 378 A. Expendit

492 F.Supp. 1211 (1980) UNITED STATES of America v. Daniel OCAMPO, Theodoro Hernandez, Carlos Cardona, Jose Vincente Otero, Nicholas A. Munoz-Velasquez, Defendants. No. 80 CR 00061. United States District Court, E. D. New York. June 2, 1980. *1212 *1213 *1214

OPINION EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: Brashier and Coughlan appeal their convictions for criminal violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Act)1 as the result of illegal concurrent investments. Brashier also appeals a judgment of conviction for filing a false 1971 federal income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).2

418 U.S. 602 (1974) UNITED STATES v. MARINE BANCORPORATION, INC., ET AL. No. 73-38. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 23, 1974. Decided June 26, 1974. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. *604 Deputy Solicitor General Friedman argued the cause for