Cases

In the United States Court of Federal Claims ) ROGER BIRDBEAR, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) No. 16-75L v. ) (Filed: August 14, 2025) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-CF-1340 BENITO M. VALDEZ, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50266 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr- 00704-FLA-1 v. RAMI GHANEM, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Ju

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-CF-110 MARK FUNDERBURK, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATE

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10435 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01263- v. ROS-1 AHMED ALAHMEDALABDALOKLAH, AMENDED OPINION *

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-111 Filed: August 19, 2025 ________________________________________ ) CHESHIRE HUNT, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10435 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01263- v. ROS-1 AHMED ALAHMEDALABDALOKLAH, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 6, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, filed December 1, 2017 (Doc. 78)("Motion"); (ii) the Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Suppress All Evidence Seized and Any Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Obtained as a Result of the Unlawful Search, filed July 24, 2018 (Doc. 141)("Supp. Motion"); (iii) the Defendant Bentley Streett'

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH March 2, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert UNITED STA

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 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

21-1058 United States of America v. Ullah In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2021 Argued: April 27, 2022 Decided: April 21, 2026 No. 21-1058 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Nos. 16-865L, 16-893L Filed: June 1, 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANDREW S. LUCIER, et al., * THOMAS E. BEATTIE, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * Cross-Motion for Partial Summary v.

Summary 6/29/2018 10:04:24 AM Differences exist between documents. New Document: Old Document: 16-402_new 16-402 119 pages (614 KB) 119 pages (614 KB) 6/29/2018 10:04:11 AM 6/29/2018 10:04:10 AM Used to display results. Get started: first change is on page 53. No pages were deleted How to read this report Highlight indicates a change. Deleted indicates deleted content

MORITZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I agree with the lead opinion that this case turns on the timing of Roberson’s seizure. And I agree that the timing of Roberson’s seizure turns on the timing of his submission. But I disagree with the lead opinion’s conclusion that Roberson didn’t submit—and that the officers therefore didn’t seize him—until he put his hands on his steering wheel. Instead, I would hold that t

In the United States Court of Federal Claims FOR PUBLICATION No. 16-1276C (Filed: June 6, 2022) ) CITY OF FRESNO, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. )

In the Cited States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-499; 13-800 Filed: January 10, 2022 LODGE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Michael H. Payne, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, Philadelphia, PA, and Edward Parrott, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P., McLean, VA, for Plaintiff. John H. Roberson, Senior Trial Counsel, with whom were Steven Hough, Trial Attorney, Joana Cristei, Trial Attorney, Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant Director, Martin

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS FRUITS OF WARRANT-LESS SEARCH William Alsup, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION In this criminal action, defendant is charged with being a felon in possession of *883body armor among other offenses. Defendant moves to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search of his person and subsequent

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Third Party Petitioner Michelle Meadows’ Petition for an Ancillary Hearing on Forfeiture (“Meadows Petition”) [Doc. No. 99], Third Party Petitioner Natus Corporation’s Petition of Interest in Property at 973 Payne Ave (“Natus Petition”) [Doc. No 97], Third Party Petitioner County of Ramsey’s Pet

KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Defendants Michael Romano and William Kearney appeal from judgments of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered by Sterling Johnson, Jr., Judge, following a jury trial before Joseph F. Bianco, Judge, convicting defendants of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in connection w