Cases

CCA 20150179. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to May 17, 2017.

CCA 20150179. In the above referenced cases, on consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

MEMORANDUM * Appellant Scott Koth appeals the denial of his motions to suppress the evidence resulting from an investigative stop of his automobile by Officer Brian Silva and the evidence gathered during a subsequent search of his home pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm. The district court credited Silva’s testimony that, based upon his prior interactions with Koth and his conversatio

MEMORANDUM * Appellant Scott Koth appeals the denial of his motions to suppress the evidence resulting from an investigative stop of his automobile by Officer Brian Silva and the evidence gathered during a subsequent search of his home pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm. The district court credited Silva’s testimony that, based upon his prior interactions with Koth and his conversatio

16 F.2d 59 (1926) KOTH v. UNITED STATES. No. 4923. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 29, 1926. *60 *61 Robertson & Paine, of Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff in error. H. E. Ray, U. S. Atty., and Sam S. Griffin and William H. Langroise, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Boise,

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-1189 (Filed: 17 February 2022) *************************************** MARINE INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, * LLC, * * Plaintiff, * Summary Judgment; Termination for *

*213 GOODWIN, Chief Judge: Richard Korab was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2 for aiding and abetting an act of federal extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(b) and under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a) for soliciting others to engage in the extortion. 1 The

*8 JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record and on the briefs and oral argument of the parties. The court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of dismissal be reversed a

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: Lavon Wilson appeals a conviction following a conditional plea of guilty (pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2)) to second-degree murder on an Indian reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153 (1982). Wilson entered his plea on the condition that he retain his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements made

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge. The plaintiffs in this putative class action are Hispanic farmers who allege that the defendants — the United States, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and the heads of those agencies — have violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by offering to sett

665 F.Supp.2d 717 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Gilbert SALINAS, Defendant. No. SA-07-CR-436-RF. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. October 19, 2009. *718 Priscilla Garcia, Assistant United States Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff. Frank A. Menchaca, Law Office of Frank

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Arthur McDonnell became administrator of Vincent P. Koth’s estate in May 1998. Discovering that Koth kept some securities in safe deposit boxes, so that they did not appear in any of his brokerage statements, McDonnell concealed them from the probate court, Koth’s heirs, and the tax collector. He set up a corporation and asked his son-in-law Patrick O’M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) DAVID CANTU, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-541 (RBW) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) et al.,

735 F.Supp.2d 1286 (2010) BELLCO CREDIT UNION, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-cv-01071-CMA-KMT. United States District Court, D. Colorado. April 2, 2010. *1287 Michael M. Conway, Anna R. Downs-Temple, Rebecca R. Hanson, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Chicago, IL, Eugene M. Sprague, Berenbaum

735 F.Supp.2d 1268 (2009) BELLCO CREDIT UNION, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-cv-01071-CMA-KMT. United States District Court, D. Colorado. November 12, 2009. *1270 Michael M. Conway, Anna R. Downs-Temple, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Chicago, IL, Richard F. Riley, Jr., Foley & Lardner,

OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Plaintiff K-Con Building Systems, Inc. filed three suits in this court concerning its contracts with the United States Coast Guard (“Coast Guard”) for the design and construction of prefabricated metal buildings in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, St. Peters-burg, Florida, and Port Huron, Michigan. The three suits share many similarities, but there are meaningful

OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge. Plaintiff K-Con Building Systems, Inc. filed three suits in this court concerning its contracts with the United States Coast Guard (“Coast Guard”) for the design and construction of prefabricated metal buildings in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, St. Peters-burg, Florida, and Port Huron, Michigan. The three suits share many similarities, but there are meaningful diff

OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge. Plaintiff K-Con Building Systems, Inc. has filed three suits in this court concerning its contracts with the United States Coast Guard (“Coast Guard”) for the design and construction of prefabricated metal buildings in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, St. Peters-burg, Florida, and Port Huron, Michigan. Although the three suits share many similarities, bhere are meaning

ORDER AND OPINION DAMICH, Chief Judge. I. Introduction This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ and D & G Apartments’ (“D & G”) Motion for Substitution of deceased Plaintiff Eileen Kothe (“Ms.Kothe”) pursuant to Rules 17(a) and 25(a) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).1 Plaintiffs assert that substitution is prop