Cases

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

56 F.3d 75NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Paul Daniel SWEARINGEN, Jeffrey Scott Campbell, Kevin JohnRuska, Jr., Defendants-Appellants.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 16-0472 Filed February 8, 2017 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NICHOLAS ROBERT CAMPBELL-SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge. Nicholas Campbell-Scott appeals his convictions for possession of a fire

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION July 23, 2019 Plaintiff-Appellant,

*812ORDER J.P. Stadtmueller, U.S. District Judge On December 9, 2016, the respondent filed a motion to compel the petitioner’s former counsel, whom he his now claiming providing ineffective assistance at trial, to provide affidavit testimony on the subject of the petitioner’s habeas motion. (Docket # 4). By raising claims of ineffective assistance of c

ORDER J.P. Stadtmueller, U.S. District Judge On December 14, 2016, the Court granted the respondent’s motion to compel (the *913“Order”). (Docket # 5). That same day, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the Order. (Docket # 7). The Court will also consider his response to the motion to compel, simultaneously filed on December 14, 2016. (Doc

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-1834C (E-Filed: January 11, 2022) ) BES DESIGN/BUILD, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Motion to Transfer; 41 U.S.C. § 7107(d). ) v. )

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Peter J. Rusthoven, J. Curtis Greene, Mark J. Crandley, Meredith Thornburgh White, J.T. Larson, BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE, DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL OF INDIANA: Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Robert B. Thornburg, Maggie L. Smith, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, Lucy R. Dollens, QUARLES & BRADY, LLP, Indianapolis,

PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Altice, Judge. Case Summary [1] Paul Johnson lost his eye and suffered other facial injuries after using a tool designed and sold by Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Company (Campbell Hausfeld). In response to the products liability suit filed by Johnson, Campbell Hausfeld alleged the defenses of misuse, alteration, and incurred risk and filed a m

PER CURIAM. After the district court 1 denied Anthony Shane Scott’s motion to suppress guns seized from his home, Scott conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to supp

HAMLIN, Circuit Judge. On November 13, 1969, after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,- Las Vegas, appellant William Scott Campbell was found guilty of a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. His in forma pau-peris appeal to this court, which has jurisdiction under 28 U

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW S. HANEN, District Judge. This is a case in which twenty-six states or their representatives are seeking in-junctive relief against the United States and several officials of the Department of Homeland Security to prevent them from implementing a program entitled “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.”1 This p

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WYNN wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge MOTZ joined. WYNN, Circuit Judge: A federal jury convicted Defendant William Andrew Clarke of one count of attempting to persuade minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and the district court sentenced • Defendant to 1

DECISION AND ORDER RUDOLPH T. RANDA, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Raza Bokhari’s motion to dismiss the indictment and to quash the warrant for his arrest. Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein recommends the denial of this motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court will not adjudicate the merits of Bokhari’s motion pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Lemurel Williams was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun. Williams’s first argument on appeal is that the prosecution unconstitutionally rejected potential jurors because of their race. We need not decide that issue because we agree with Williams’s second argument: a new trial is needed because the totality of the circum

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Appellants, a putative class of over 300 former sailors, appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of their challenges to the Navy’s implementation of an Enlisted Retention Board (ERB) that resulted in their honorable discharges. We affirm. Background In a March 20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE RESTITUTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3664© (DOC. 58), AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS FOR STATUS OF CASE (DOC. 64) AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF EARLIER FILED MOTIONS (DOC. 65) C.N. CLEVERT, JR., District Judge. On October 5, 2005, this court sentenced Thomas Kopatich to 126 months imprisonment and ordered him to repay $4,500 drug buy money as a condition of supervised release. On Januar

PER CURIAM. Christopher Seifer was convicted of four counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and one count of theft of government property, id. § 641. At Seifer’s trial the district court empaneled 13 jurors without desig *329 nating the alternate, who then was chosen randomly ju

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. Adrian Patterson was convicted by jury trial of a number of drug charges, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. On appeal, Patterson raises a number of challenges to his conviction and sentence. As we explain below, none of the pretrial, trial, and sentencing claims have merit. We hold, among othe