Cases

ORDER Upon consideration of Kevin A. Barnes, et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Kevin Barnes et al. (Barnes) notify the court that the United States Court of Federal Claims has requested that this court dismiss “the entire matter on appeal, without prejudice, and remand to this court for the purpose of addressing all outstanding matters.” We treat Barnes’ notification as a motion to remand. The United States has not responded. On

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 *

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE PRESEN-TENCE REPORT AND SENTENCING MEMORANDUM William P. Johnson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS .MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant Michael Montoya’s Objection to the Presentence Report and Sentencing Memorandum (Doc. 169) filed January 10, 2016. Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant

JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge: Jesus Enrique-Ascencio pleaded guilty to one count of illegally' reentering the country after a prior removal. He appeals the 16-level sentence enhancement he received under Section 2L1.2 of the federal Sentencing Guidelines for a prior drug trafficking conviction, contending that this conviction was not “a drug trafficking offense for which

669 F.3d 240 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar Omar MONTES-SALAS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-41167. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 26, 2012. *243 Eileen K. Wilson (argued), Renata Ann Gowie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Marjorie A. Meyers, Fed.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: We took this case en banc to consider whether the government presented sufficient evidence at Cuellar’s trial to support his conviction of international money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove all elements of the offense. We also consider Cuellar’s arguments that the district court erred in

PER CURIAM: Marcelo Estrada-Torres seeks dismissal of his indictment for illegally entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Alternatively, he argues that the district court erred by imposing a sixteen-level sentence" enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). I. Estrada-Torres entered the United States in the late 1980s and became a legal permanent resident soon th

692 F.Supp. 1265 (1988) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Trinidad SALGADO, Defendant. No. C-4951. United States District Court, E.D. Washington. March 25, 1988. As Modified November 3, 1988. *1266 John Lamp, U.S. Atty., James B. Crum, Asst. U.S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff. Al Kitching, Kay

MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED , and this matter is REMANDED to the 25th Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motions to Dismiss the Complaint

GUTIERREZ, Judge Kasey A. Smith pled guilty to one count of injury to children. On appeal, Smith argues that the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress should be reversed and his judgment of conviction vacated because his confession was not voluntary. Smith also asks to be resentenced, asserting that the district court erred in finding that he

18-1120-cv Tobias Bermudez Chavez, et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corp. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2018 (Argued: March 4, 2019 Decided: August 6, 2021) Docket No. 18-1120-cv TOBIAS BERMUDEZ CHAVEZ, GERARDO ANTONIO FONESCA TORRES, FRANKLIN GUILLEN SALAZAR, GARCIA MONTES JOSE GABINO, MARIANO DE LOS ANGELES PIZARRO, ANTONIO OSORN

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS JOSEPH NIZAR AL-HANNA, § No. 08-17-00037-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the v. §

Filed 10/22/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D074946 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. CR143205, SCD120970, SCD153778) LEOLA ALLEN,

ORDER .NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this litigation, Plaintiff David Doyle (“Plaintiff’) brings claims against Defendants Tidewater, Inc. (“Tidewater”), Galli-ano Marine Services, LLC (“Galliano”), and .Offshore Service Vessels, LLC (“Offshore”), pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, and general maritime laws.1 Plaintiff alleges that he was in

*320 OPINION MILLER, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 We previously issued an opinion in this matter. State v. Ruiz, 236 Ariz. 15, 335 P.3d 537 (App.2014). On Adolfo Ruiz’s motion for reconsideration and in light of certain points raised concerning that portion of our decis

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. STEVE MONTENEGRO, ET AL.,* Defendants/Appellants. No. CV-24-0167-AP/EL Filed April 3, 2025 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable C

*556MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARCIA A. CRONE, DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (# 3), wherein Plaintiffs Carolyn Sue Hamerly, Melanie Nicole Hamerly Schlemmer, and Joseph Randal Hamerly, Jr. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek remand of this action to the state court in which it was originally filed. Having reviewed th

MARCIA A. CRONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *716Pending before the court is Plaintiff Robert P. Theriot's ("Theriot") Motion to Abstain and to Remand (# 5), wherein Theriot requests the court remand this action back to state court. Having considered the pending motion, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, and the applicable law, the