Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Garrett Kirby LaFromboise appeals from the district court’s judgment and *712challenges his 160-month sentence for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a), 113(a)(6), and 3559(f)(3). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.' 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)

MEMORANDUM * LaFromboise’s argument regarding grouping and consecutive sentences is based on a misreading of United States v. Archdale, 229 F.3d 861 (9th Cir.2000). The analysis there related to an issue not raised in this case. In Archdale the minimum guidelines exceeded the statutory maximum on one of the counts, so eonseeutivity was imposed to the extent necessary to produce a sentence e

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 03-35853 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. v.  CV-99-00080-BLG/ JDS DEAN LAFROMBOISE, Defendant-Appellant. CR-94-0082-JDS  OPINION Appeal from the United St

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 03-35853 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. v. CV-99-00080-BLG/ DEAN LAFROMBOISE,  JDS CR-94-0082-JDS Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I agree with the majority that LaFrom-boise’s conviction and sentence must be *687final before the one-year limitation period for filing a § 2255 motion begins to run. I also agree that finality does not occur until the district court has acted on our mandate and the time to appeal that action has passed. The majority er

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Sandy LaFromboise, individually and on behalf of her son Robert, filed suit against the United States, the Secretary of Health *793 and Human Services, and the Indian Health Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). LaFromboise claimed that her son had been a victi

439 F.3d 792 Sandy LAFROMBOISE, individually, and on behalf of her minor son, Robert LaFromboise, Jr., Appellant,v.Michael O. LEAVITT, as the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department;1 Indian Health Service; United States of America, Appellees. No. 04-3245. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. S

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, Dean LaFromboise pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing a sawed off shotgun which had not been registered to him, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). On appeal, LaFrom-boise argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the sawed off shotgun. LaFromboise also argues the district court

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT MAY 6, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM. INTRODUCTION James LaFromboise, contends that 18 U.S.C. § 4243(e) and (f) of the Insanity Defense Reform Act violate his rights to due process and equal protection. He asserts that these provisions do not provide him (a person found not guilty only by reason of insanity) with a hearing at which he can contest his continued commitment to a

542 N.W.2d 110 (1996) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Arnold J. LaFROMBOISE, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 950153. Supreme Court of North Dakota. January 11, 1996. Stephen J. Rice, Walsh County State's Attorney, Grafton, for plaintiff and appellee. *111 Robert J. Woods of Woods Legal Services, Forest R

BEAM, Circuit Judge. This much-litigated but never-tried case comes to us on appeal from the district court’s denial of Ernest V. Parisien’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to alter or amend the district court’s judgment. By so ruling, the district court refused to entirely dissolve an injunction which prohibits Pari-sién from proceeding with a case — pending in tribal court — he initiated several years ago against Twin City C

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3137 ___________________________ Brian Iverson lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America; Transportation Security Administration

246 N.W.2d 616 (1976) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. David W. LaFROMBOISE, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. No. 531. Supreme Court of North Dakota. October 20, 1976. *617 David E. Boeck, Grand Forks, and Senior Law Student Ralph Vinje, for appellant. Arne F. Boyum, State's Atty., Rolla, for appellee. <

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROBERTO A. LANGE, District Judge. Plaintiff William Gunville (“Gunville”) brought this negligence action against Defendant United States of America (“the Government”) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, to recover damages arising from a slip and fall accident that occurred at the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) hosp

OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: Federal prisoner Weldon Gilbert appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time barred. On April 23, 2009, Gilbert pleaded guilty in federal court to multiple counts of the production of child pornography, transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, and obstruction of justice

824 F.Supp.2d 918 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Francis Merle BAKER, Jr., a/k/a Chico, Defendant. Case No. 4:10-cr-006. United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Northwestern Division. June 7, 2011. *919 Gary L. Delorme, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bismarck, ND, for Plaintiff. ORDER DENYING DEFEN

MEMORANDUM ** Defendant-Appellant William Edward Piers appeals from the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions for several charges arising out of an armed robbery of a credit union. Reviewing the district court's ruling de novo, see United States v. LaFromboise, 427 F.3d 680, 683 (9th Cir.2005), we AFFIRM for the following reasons. 1. Piers

MEMORANDUM ** Defendant-Appellant William Edward Piers appeals from the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions for several charges arising out of an armed robbery of a credit union. Reviewing the district court's ruling de novo, see United States v. LaFromboise, 427 F.3d 680, 683 (9th Cir.2005), we AFFIRM for the following reasons. 1. Piers

MEMORANDUM ** Federal prisoner David C. Wamhoff appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, United States v. LaFromboise, 427 F.3d 680, 683 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm. *622Conc