Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-2111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. SCOTT ESTES, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Andrew Estes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

CCA S81886. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 3, 2012.

CCA 20090385. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

CCA 20090385. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that the date of sentencing was 29 April 2009. [See a

OPINION OF THE COURT SCHENCK, Senior Judge: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial found appellant guilty, pursuant to his pleas, of absence without leave (AWOL) (two specifications), wrongful use of marijuana (three specifications), and wrongful use of cocaine and methylenedioxymethampheta*546mine (MDMA)1

116 F.3d 476 U.S.v.Estes** NO. 96-20206 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Apr 16, 1997 Appeal From: S.D.Tex. ,No.CAH96334 1 Affirmed.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 92-2490 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS RALPH EDWARD ESTES,

Keywords: Motion to Compel; Attorney-Client Privilege; Work-Product Privilege; Deliberative Process Privilege. OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to compel the government to produce certain documents it asserts are covered by the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, the att

*76 RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6); U.S. Savings Bonds; 31 C.F.R. § 315.20; “Valid, Judicial Proceedings”; Title-Based Es-cheat; Breach of Contract; Third-Party Beneficiary; Fifth Amendment Taking OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. In this action, Plaintif

609 F.Supp. 564 (1985) UNITED STATES of America v. Kenneth Lee ESTES. Crim. No. 84-55-1. United States District Court, D. Vermont. March 15, 1985. As Amended April 8, 1985. *565 Christopher Baril, Asst. U.S. Atty., Rutland, Vt., for plaintiff. Richard I. Rubin, Barre, Vt., for defendant. FI

654 F.Supp. 49 (1986) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Andrew C. ESTES, et al., Defendants. No. C-3-86-135. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D. December 18, 1986. *50 Margaret M. Quinn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dayton, Ohio, Robert W. Kern, Atty., Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

909 F.2d 511 U.S.v.Estes (Manfred Lewis) NO. 89-5554 United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit. MAY 31, 1990 1 Appeal From: D.N.D. 2 AFFIRMED.

Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. |§ 7101-09); RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 56; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Certified Claim; Sum Certain. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Estes Express Lines, brought this action against the United States to recover freight cha

REYNA, Circuit Judge. Estes Express Lines (“Estes”) appeals from a final order of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing Estes’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Estes Express Lines v. United States, 108 Fed.Cl. 416 (2018). For the reasons below, we reverse an

MEMORANDUM *** Plaintiff Victoria Marie Estes (“Estes”) appeals the district court’s decision dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Estes brought suit under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992 (“FSHCAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 233, alleging that she had received negligent dental treatment

448 F.Supp. 971 (1978) UNITED STATES of America v. Billie Sol ESTES and Patsy D. Estes. No. CA 1-76-19. United States District Court, N. D. Texas, Abilene Division. February 7, 1978. *972 John J. McCarthy, Jr., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Claude D. Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for the Government.

Contract case; Motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); Standard of review; Subcontractor lacked privity of contract with the United States; Contractor was not agent of Federal agency; 49 U.S.C. § 13706; Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge. This contract case is before the court on defendant’s m

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.