Cases

Opinion of the Court WISS, Judge: 1. Upon provident pleas of guilty, a general court-martial composed of a military judge alone convicted appellant of stealing personal checks, falsely making the stolen checks payable to himself, and knowingly uttering those falsely made checks to the credit union (2 specifications each), in violation of Articles 121 and 123, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 1

OPINION OF THE COURT PEARSON, Judge: A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted Airman First Class Albrecht, in accordance with his pleas, of stealing personal checks from two other Air Force members, falsely making the checks out to himself for a total of $480, and uttering the checks to a credit union for cash, in violation of Articles 121 and 123, Uniform Code of Milit

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire denied.

740 F.2d 977 *U.S.v.Albrecht 83-5648 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. 7/30/84 1 S.D.Fla. AFFIRMED 2 ---------------

OPINION OF THE COURT FULTON, Judge: Charged with wrongfully possessing heroin (specification 1) and marihuana (specification 2), the appellant was tried in a general court-martial. His plea of guilty was taken by the military judge, who thereupon found him guilty of both offenses. The sentence was adjudged by court members. The offenses were multiplicious for sentencing purposes becaus

364 F.Supp. 1349 (1973) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Robert ALBRECHT and Marion Albrecht, Defendants. Civ. No. 4758. United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Northeastern Division. October 5, 1973. Lynn E. Crooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for plaintiff. Robert Q. Price, Price & La Qua, Langdon, N. D., for defendants. <

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

793 F.Supp.2d 473 (2011) Louis E. ALBRECHT, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2010-10469-RBC.[1] United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. June 16, 2011. *474 Sandra L. Smales, Jamaica Plain, MA, for Plaintiff, Louis E. Albrecht. Rayford A. Farquh

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Same case below, 617 F.3d 890.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *619amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

Justice THOMAS, concurring. I join the Court's opinion and write separately to explain my understanding of the relevant pre-emption principles and how they apply to this case. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authorit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 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

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

RIDDICK, Circuit Judge. These cases are companion cases to No. 13,174, Oliver et al. v. United States, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 73. They present, on facts identical so far as material, the question decided in the Oliver case. In these cases, however, the judgment of the District Court was in favor of the appellee landowners. Since the decision here is ruled by the Oliver case, the judgment in each of the cases is reversed, and each

Bland, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Under the Tariff Act of 1930, and during the period ranging from 1931 to 1935, inclusive, the appellees imported from Japan into the port of New York certain merchandise invoiced as “filtering paper,” “filtering paper circles,” and “bibulous paper circles.” The merchandise was entered as filtering paper under paragraph 1409 of said tariff act.