Cases

SUMMARY ORDER Defendants Daniel Fernandez and Jose Betancourt appeal from convictions for conspiring to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), 846. Fernandez, who stands convicted after a jury trial, argues on appeal that (1) the district court erred in denying him a mistrial, (2) the district court’s multiple conspiracy jury charge was erroneous, (3) there was a prejudicia

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rogelio Perez-Trujillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), and its progeny, which held that unpreserved claims based on United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005),

ORDER Upon consideration of Kevin A. Barnes, et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(Reported below: 95 Fed. Appx. 591); (95 Fed. Appx. 572); (95 Fed. Appx. 677); (95 Fed. Appx. 686); (95 Fed. Appx. 694); (95 Fed. Appx. 576); (95 Fed. Appx. 691); (95 Fed. Appx. 668); (95 Fed. Appx. 693); (95 Fed. Appx. 567); (95 Fed. Appx. 672); (95 Fed. Appx. 616);

LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Kevin Barnes et al. (Barnes) notify the court that the United States Court of Federal Claims has requested that this court dismiss “the entire matter on appeal, without prejudice, and remand to this court for the purpose of addressing all outstanding matters.” We treat Barnes’ notification as a motion to remand. The United States has not responded. On

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

*844(Reported below: 61 Fed. Appx. 923); *845(61 Fed. Appx. 922); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 922); (61 Fed. Appx. 92

540 U.S. 844 ACOSTA-ESQUIVEL, AKA HUERTAv.UNITED STATESCARO-GRIMALDOv.UNITED STATESCERDA-MONTESv.UNITED STATESCHAVEZ-ROMEROv.UNITED STATESHERNANDEZ-ROMEROv.UNITED STATESHERRERA-PINAv.UNITED STATESMARTINEZ-SOLISv.UNITED STATESREVULTA-ESPINOZAv.UNITED STATESRODRIGUEZ-CARRANZA, AKA GONZALESv.UNITED STATES andRODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZv.UNITED ST

*844(Reported below: 61 Fed. Appx. 923); *845(61 Fed. Appx. 922); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 923); (61 Fed. Appx. 922); (61 Fed. Appx. 92

(Reported below: 71 Fed. Appx. 384); (72 Fed. Appx. 957); (71 Fed. Appx. 437); (72 Fed. Appx. 971); (72 Fed. Appx. 962); (74 Fed. Appx. 357); (73 Fed. Appx. 75); (71 Fed. Appx. 397); (72 Fed. Appx. 955); (72 Fed. Appx. 961); (72 Fed. Appx. 960); (72 Fed. Appx. 954);

(Reported below: 71 Fed. Appx. 384); (72 Fed. Appx. 957); (71 Fed. Appx. 437); (72 Fed. Appx. 971); (72 Fed. Appx. 962); (74 Fed. Appx. 357); (73 Fed. Appx. 75); (71 Fed. Appx. 397); (72 Fed. Appx. 955); (72 Fed. Appx. 961); (72 Fed. Appx. 960); (72 Fed. Appx. 954);

COFFEY, Circuit Judge. On October 27, 1997, plaintiff-appellant Renaldo Hernandez (“Hernandez”) filed this action in federal court against the Joliet, Illinois Police Department and two of its officers, Francis Ruettiger and Thomas Stein, and against the Illinois State’s Attorney’s Office of Will County and the First Assistant State’s Attorney, Douglas DeBoer, alleging a violation

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 19-1108 ══════════ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Dos Repúblicas Coal Partnership, Petitioners, v. Maverick County, City of Eagle Pass, Environmental Defense Fund, Walter Herring, Ernesto Ibarra, Gabriel De La Cerda, Mike Hernandez, Boulware and Anson Family, Ltd., a

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00785-CV Appellants, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Dos Repúblicas Coal Partnership// Cross-Appellants, Maverick County; City of Eagle Pass; Environmental Defense Fund; Walter Herring; Ernesto Ibarra; Gabriel De La Cerda; Mike Hernandez; Boulware and Anson Family, Ltd; and Maverick County Environmental and Public Health Association

HARTZ, Circuit Judge. Defendants Pedro Garcia and Gonzalo Ramirez were convicted of conspiring with other members of their criminal gang to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). They were also convicted of committing various violent crimes in aid of racketeering, see id. § 1959 (VI

OPINION PIERSOL, Senior District Judge: A jury found defendants Fernando Ca-zares, Gilbert Saldana, Alejandro Martinez, and Porfirio Avila guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 by conspiring to intimidate African-American citizens in the Highland Park neighborhood of Los Ange-les and to deprive them of their constitutional right to “purchase, lease and h

694 F.Supp. 1406 (1988) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ricardo MACIAS-PEDROZA, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Francisco Rafael HUGUES-ESPINOZA, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose Ernesto MORENO-GREEN and Oscar Lara Navarrete, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Roger A. CONTRERAS, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ric

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On October 18, 2013, the Court heard argument on a motion to dismiss the indictment brought by defendant Carlos Roberto Rodriguez-Vasquez. The defendant seeks to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that his prior deportation violated due process, and therefore cannot serve as a predicate deportation in this case. H

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50336 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:11-cr-00872-JAH-1 JESUS VALDEZ-NOVOA, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION Appeal from the United States District Cou