Cases

35 F.3d 561 U.S.v.Finney* NO. 94-50395 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Aug 29, 1994 1 Appeal From: W.D.Tex. 2

44 F.3d 1008 U.S.v.Finney* NO. 94-2017 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Dec 29, 1994 1 Appeal From: M.D.Fla. ,No. 93-00140-CR-J-10 2

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

Affirmed Saddler

GLADIS, Judge: The accused was convicted at a special court-martial bench trial of a 10-month unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 886, and sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 3 months, and forfeiture of $250.00 per month for 3 months. Finding that deprivation of normal liberty for the purpose of indoctrination when no indoctrina

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

OPINION DUNN, Bankruptcy Judge. This appeal requires that we interpret the Bankruptcy Code to determine when a chapter 13 1 debtor is eligible for a discharge where that debtor previously received a chapter 7 discharge in a case converted from chapter 13. I.FACTS

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

535 U.S. 1004 FINNEYv.UNITED STATES. No. 01-8799. Supreme Court of the United States. April 15, 2002. 1 C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 281 F. 3d 225.

PER CURIAM: On appeal from a judgment of conviction for refusing induction into the Armed Services, appellant contends that his local board erred in failing to con-side his claim for I-A-0 status. The claim was presented to his local board after he had refused induction and after he was indicted for his refusal. It is now well established that a local board is not required to take action concerning a r

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juliette N. Finney appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Finney’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find n

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

333 B.R. 242 (2005) In re Daniel R. FINNEY, Debtor. Dennis J. Spyra, Plaintiff, v. Daniel R. Finney, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 00-27159 JKF. Adversary No. 04-2539. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. September 30, 2005. *244 Dennis J. Spyra, Esquire, Pittsburgh, PA, and Alan E. Cech, Esquire, Wexford, PA, for P

OPINION AND ORDER MARSH, District Judge. After pleading guilty to five charges of bank robbery (§ 2113(d), Title 18 U.S.C.) and after being sentenced under § 4208(b), Title 18 U.S.C., for the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed by law and for study pursuant to § 4208 *113(c) ,1 the defendant moved for leave to wit

*767ORDER Willie C. Finney, Jr., is a 55-year-old former railroad employee. In January 1999, Finney applied for a disability annuity under § 2(a)(l)(iv) of the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231a(a)(l)(iv), claiming that back and elbow problems had made it impossible for him to perform his prior work as service center representative. His application was denied, as were his

337 B.R. 479 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Ann Catherine FINNEY, Relator, Bringing This Action on Behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiffs, v. NEXTWAVE TELECOM, INC., Nextwave Personal Communications, Inc., Nextwave Partners, Inc., Nextwave Wireless, Inc., Nextwave Power Partners, Inc., Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Lucas, McGowan, Nace & Gutierrez, Chartered, Lucas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, Chartered, and Thomas G

Opinion of the Court HomeR FeRGtjson, Judge: We granted review in this case to consider two issues. The first concerns the correctness of the law officer’s instructions on the question of intent as derived from evidence “of a much prolonged absence for which there is no satisfactory explanation.” The second issue relates to the propriety of the convening authority’s action in providing for the application

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.