Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3532 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:23-cr-00202- TWR-1 v. HIGINIO ALEJANDRO OPINION GONZALEZ-REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States D

47 F.3d 425 U.S.v.Gonzalez-Reyes** NO. 94-60430 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Jan 25, 1995 Appeal From: S.D.Tex., No. CR-L-94-11-1 1 DISMISSED.

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

MEMORANDUM ** Sergio Reyes-Gonzalez appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(vm), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Reyes-Gonzalez c

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Dario Reyes, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Reyes has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for le

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise from a multi-count indictment alleging that the four appellants — Sonia Flores-Rivera (“Sonia”), Sandra Flores-Rivera '(“Sandra”), Carlos Omar Bermúdez-Torres (“Omar”), Cruz Roberto Ramos-González (“Ramos”) — and their forty-three co-defendants 1 participated in a far

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Dario Reyes, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Reyes has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for le

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appellant Cruz Roberto Ramos-González (“Ramos”) was tried a second time on a drug trafficking charge after this court concluded that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation had been violated at his first trial. See United States v. Ramos-González, 664 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.2011). Ramos was again convicted of possessing more than 500 gram

LYNCH, Chief Judge. This case is a cautionary tale for criminal defense counsel as to the need to observe the time limits for taking appeals set forth in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the restrictions on reconsideration of sentence#'-set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Two basic lessons emerge from our consideration of the interplay between the two s

624 F.3d 405 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime REYES-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 09-1249, 09-1551. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued November 13, 2009. Decided October 7, 2010.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Marcos Gonzalez-Aguilera has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Gonzalez-Aguilera has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portion

*982(Reported below: 87 Fed. Appx. 930); (85 Fed. Appx. 363); (83 Fed. Appx. 620); (85 Fed. Appx. 367); (82 Fed. Appx. 901); (83 Fed. Appx. 622); (82 Fed. Appx. 902); (83 Fed. Appx. 623); (82 Fed. Appx. 908); (82 Fed. Appx. 904); (83 F

*982(Reported below: 87 Fed. Appx. 930); (85 Fed. Appx. 363); (83 Fed. Appx. 620); (85 Fed. Appx. 367); (82 Fed. Appx. 901); (83 Fed. Appx. 622); (82 Fed. Appx. 902); (83 Fed. Appx. 623); (82 Fed. Appx. 908); (82 Fed. Appx. 904); (83 F

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Manuel Reyes Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) appeals his conviction on one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing that the district court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle and (2) allowing the government to introduce evidence of his prior arrests and prior conviction for drug possession. F

*1001(Reported below: 82 Fed. Appx. 914); *1002(82 Fed. Appx. 920); (82 Fed. Appx. 881); (84 Fed. Appx. 388); (82 Fed. Appx. 955); (82 Fed. Appx. 903); (82 Fed. Appx. 954); (82 Fed. Appx. 930); (83 Fed. Appx

*1001(Reported below: 82 Fed. Appx. 914); *1002(82 Fed. Appx. 920); (82 Fed. Appx. 881); (84 Fed. Appx. 388); (82 Fed. Appx. 955); (82 Fed. Appx. 903); (82 Fed. Appx. 954); (82 Fed. Appx. 930); (83 Fed. Appx

(Reported below: 43 Fed. Appx. 116); C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 23-1502 23-1503 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JONATHAN KEMUEL FARGAS-REYES, Defendant, Appellant. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1277 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. CARLOS J. REYES-ROSARIO, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge]

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge. Appellants Alfonso Labráda Gurolla (“Labrada”), Jose Reyes Ortega-Gonzalez (“Ortega”), and Manuel Barraza Leon (“Barraza”) are three Mexican bankers who were arrested in the largest money laundering sting in United States history: Operation Checkmark. Appellants were tried and convicted of money laundering and related offenses and sentenced, respectivel