Cases

PER CURIAM: Gregory George Rutledge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to terminate his supervised release judgement under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rutledge, No. 1:04-cr00321-LMB-1 (E.D.Va: filed Aug. 12 & entered Aug. 13, 2015). We dispense with

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Harris joined. KING, Circuit Judge: In February 2016, the defendants in these proceedings—Mohsin Raza, Hu-maira Iqbal, Farukh Iqbal, and Mohammad Ali Haider—were convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Virg

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees Paul J. Hanly, Jr. and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (the “Foundation”) appeal from a March 12, 2007 order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Wood, C.J.) inasmuch as it granted a motion by defendants-appellees-cross-appellants Powell Goldstein, LLP (“PG”) and James C. Rawls to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6

MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. Defendant, Mary Angela Herrmann, pled guilty to wire fraud and was sentenced (i) to serve 21 months in prison followed by a three year term of supervised released, (ii) to pay restitution to the fraud victim in the amount of $231,035.91, which amount was due and payable immediately, and if not paid immediately, then to be paid at a monthly rat

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Godwin Asifo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certifi

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Brian Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabil

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marquise D. Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of app

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

ORDER SPATT, District Judge. On April 23, 2007, following a bench trial, in a 66 page opinion, the Court found that the plaintiff Eve Saint proved, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the June 7, 2002 accident involving her son Thomas Saint was caused by the negligence of both drivers, Thomas Saint and Mark Arbucei. This opinion resolved all the liability and damages issues in the case

C. A. 2d Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

MEMORANDUM ** Patrick J. Sahli appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction by guilty plea on multiple counts of mail fraud. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. *619Sahli contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence based on fact

MEMORANDUM** Spencer Sawyer, a federal prisoner, appeals the summary dismissal, as untimely and without merit, of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence imposed after his conviction for conspiracy, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm. The government correctly concedes that the district court erred in dismissing the § 2255 motion as untimely without notice and an opportunity to respon

*449 PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction which sought to halt the construction of the Metropolitan Correction Center, one of two buildings comprising the Foley Square Courthouse Annex. Except for one point, discussed below,

MEMORANDUM * In these consolidated appeals, three defendants, Son Van Nguyen, Bao Lu and *394Thy Chann,1 appeal their convictions following a twenty-day jury trial for conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, use of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting a death caused by such use of a

MEMORANDUM** Felix Claude Martin appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because we cannot review the district court’s discretionary decision not to modify Martin’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1998).

PER CURIAM. Judith L. Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A

255 F.Supp.2d 1123 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John That LUONG, et. al. Defendants. No. CR S-99-0433 WBS. United States District Court, E.D. California. February 13, 2003. *1125 Richard B. Mazer, Law Offices of Richard B. Mazer, San Francisco, CA, for John That Luong. J Toney, Law Offices of J. Toney, Wo

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge: This case raises important issues under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq., a statute whose meaning is more uncertain than most, not merely because it is relatively new, but also because of the generality of its phrasing. Thus the Act recognizes “the profound influences of high-density urbanization [and] the critical i

255 F.Supp.2d 1132 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Hoang Al LE, et. al. Defendants. No. CR.S-99-0433 WBS. United States District Court, E.D. California. February 14, 2003. *1133 William Sze Wong, Patrick Hanly, United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for U.S. Richard B Mazer, Law Offices of Richard B Mazer,