Cases

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Edmund Xavier Cantu appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence and his subsequent conviction of possession of 100 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b)(1)(B). The district court held that the arresting officers had probable cause to detain

PER CURIAM: Horst Schoenhoff appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court. This is our third review of Schoenhoff s sentence. Twice previously we vacated the sentence imposed by the district court and remanded for resentencing. Schoenhoff contends that the district court’s most recent sentence exhibits the vindictivenes

ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge. Leon W. LaBudda and Edward J. Mozd-zeniak, the defendants-appellants, appeal from their convictions for criminal conspiracy. LaBudda and Mozdzeniak were charged under a two-count superseding indictment with the sale of stolen United States Savings Bonds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510(b) and with conspiracy to sell stolen United States Savings Bonds

Jones, Chief Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff Kenite Corporation was organized in 1948 to acquire a diatomite processing plant and diatomite deposits in Grant County, Washington.1 On August 24,1948, plaintiff purchased 520 acres in fee simple from Dia-cousti-lite Products Company, Incorporated. Through subsequent transactions, plaintiff, by the fall of 1

JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Five appellants raise numerous issues challenging their convictions on multiple counts relating to several importations or attempted importations of marihuana and cocaine between June 1984 and August 1985. The original indictment contained twenty-nine counts against twenty-six defendants. Shortly before trial, certain counts were dismissed without prejudice, leaving eighteen remaining counts.

WATERMAN, Justice. In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court correctly denied an employer’s motion for new. trial following a $1.4 million jury verdict for the plaintiff on claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) for employment discrimination *562based on sexual harassment by a direct supervisor and coemployees. The employer argues the district c

THOMAS, Justice. The question presented in this appeal is the application of the actual-malice rule promulgated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279, 84 S.Ct. 710, 726, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1964), in connection with a motion for summary judgment by the broadcaster of the allegedly defamatory material. The actions of the plaintiffs were premised upon some six editorials broadcast by the de