Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “United States v. Freudenthal”
McNeill v. United Statespublic domain
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR REFUND OF PENALTIES AND INTEREST NANCY D. FREUDENTHAL, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court following a bench trial commencing on February 14, 2017 before Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Court Judge. Jeffrey D. Perconte,' Gabriel Tsui, and Paul Hickey appeared as counsel for Petitioners and
United States v. Pedro Hernandez-Quintaniapublic domain
OPINION FREUDENTHAL, Chief District Judge: Hernandez-Quintania appeals from a jury conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which makes it a felony for an alien who has previously been deported to reenter the United States -without the express consent of the Attorney General to reapply for admission. As a r
Evert v. United Statespublic domain
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON WYOMING’S RECREATIONAL USE ACT NANCY D. FREUDENTHAL, Chief Judge. Plaintiff, Yolanda Evert, the appointed Wrongful Death Representative for her deceased husband, Erwin F. Evert, sues Defendant United States of America for the negligent or wrongful acts and omissions of government employees, which Plaintiff claims resulted in Mr. Evert inadv
Evert v. United Statespublic domain
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION NANCY D. FREUDENTHAL, Chief Judge. This matter comes before the Court on motion to dismiss by the Government on the basis that the claim brought in the case is subject to the exception from the waiver of immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for a claim “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to
United States v. Diazpublic domain
679 F.3d 1183 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-2252. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. May 8, 2012. *1185 Samuel L. Winder, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant. Jack E. Burkhead, Assistant United States Attorney (Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attor
United States v. McGaughypublic domain
TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. This case requires us to consider a district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to re-sentence a defendant under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure after 14 days have passed from sentencing. We hold the 14-day limitation is jurisdictional and precludes a district court from acting on a Rule 35 motion after 14 days have passed.
Freudenthal v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc.public domain
233 P.3d 933 (2010) 2010 WY 80 David D. FREUDENTHAL, Governor of the State of Wyoming, and Dr. Brent Sherard, Director of the Department of Health, in their capacity as custodian of records, Appellants (Defendants), v. CHEYENNE NEWSPAPERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff). Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., a Wyoming corporation, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. David D. Freudenthal, Governor of the State of
United States v. Koufospublic domain
FREUDENTHAL, District Judge. It is a federal crime for a convicted felon to be in unlawful possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Under the United States Sentencing Guideline Manual (USSG), the ordinary base offense level for such conduct is level 14.1 However, if the unlawful possession occurred after the felon had a prior felony conviction for a crime of violence, the base offense le
United States v. Koufospublic domain
663 F.3d 1145 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George John KOUFOS, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 10-2195, 10-2199, 10-2200. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. November 17, 2011. *1147 Richard Winterbottom, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender for the State of New
United States v. Phoenix Fuel Corp.public domain
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CHARTER AMERICA AND CHARLES LITTLE NANCY D. FREUDENTHAL, Chief Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. With this motion, Plaintiff, United States of America (“United States”), seeks summary judgment as to two of the various Defendants in this case, Charter America, Inc. (“Charter”) and Charles Little
Protection & Advocacy System, Inc. v. Freudenthalpublic domain
412 F.Supp.2d 1211 (2006) PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SYSTEM, INC. Plaintiff, v. David FREUDENTHAL, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Wyoming; Brent Sherard, in his official capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department of Health; Pablo Hernandez, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Wyoming State Hospital; Diane Baird-Hudson, in her official capacity as Administrator of the Wyoming State Training School; Defendants.
United States v. Browningpublic domain
LUCERO, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Michael Browning entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, Browning challenges the denial of his two pretrial motions and several aspects of his sentence. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §
United States v. Reavespublic domain
McKAY, Circuit Judge. This appeal requires us to define the scope of United States Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.1(b)(3) (1998), which increases by two a defendant’s offense level for certain child pornography crimes “[i]f a computer was used to solicit participation by or with a minor in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing sexually explicit material.”
United States v. Rubiopublic domain
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. I. A grand jury indicted Defendant Jaime Rubio on several drug-related counts. *711 Count 1 of the indictment charged Defendant with conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to a plea agreement
United States v. Brownpublic domain
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Defendant-Appellant Gregory J. Brown was convicted on two counts of violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(c). Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on each count. This court concludes there was sufficient evidence on each count to support the convictions for knowingly conducting a commercial work activity on Fores
United States v. Aschpublic domain
LUCERO, Circuit Judge. This case requires us to address, as a matter of first impression, whether a sentencing court, when determining the applicable sentencing range for an individual convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, can, under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), include in its quant
United States v. Turnerpublic domain
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. Dean Allen Turner entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced to sixty-two months imprisonment and three years supervised release. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his conversation with a companion recor
United States v. Meyerspublic domain
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. I. INTRODUCTION David Meyers appeals the revocation of his supervised release and resulting imprisonment on numerous grounds. The government contends that Meyers’ completion of his term of imprisonment resulting from the revocation order renders this appeal moot. This court concludes that Meyers’ appeal is indeed moot, thus depriving
United States v. Davispublic domain
TACHA, Circuit Judge. Dean Kelly Davis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his home. The evidence, which Davis claims was obtained during the course of an unreasonable arrest and without valid consent, resulted in his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) of being a felon in possession of a firearm. We exercise jurisdiction
United States v. Blackpublic domain
HENRY, Circuit Judge. Ross Frank Black appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea for possession of unregistered firearms (a violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871). Mr. Black also argues that, even if the district court did not err in denying his motion to withdraw the plea, it erred in determining his sentence. We first conclude