Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “United States v. Lillie”
United States v. Lilliepublic domain
669 F.Supp.2d 903 (2009) UNITED STATES of America v. Brian K. LILLIE. No. 08 CR 717. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. October 28, 2009. *904 Timothy John Chapman, AUSA, United States Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT M. DOW, JR.
United States v. Lillie (Dean Edward)public domain
722 F.2d 748 U.S.v.Lillie (Dean Edward) NO. 83-3049 United States Court of Appeals,ninth Circuit. NOV 22, 1983 1 Appeal From: D.Or. 2 AFFIRMED.
United States v. Lilliepublic domain
CEDARBURG, Chief Judge: Pursuant to the provisions of Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 869, the record of proceedings in this case was forwarded by the Judge Advocate General for review by this Court. Attention was invited to the following issue: I WAS THE ARTICLE 32 PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION PROPERLY CONVENED (UNITED STATES V. DONALDSON, 23
Lillie M. Wingard v. Robert A. McDonaldpublic domain
SCHOELEN, Judge: The appellant, Lillie M. Wingard, the daughter of the deceased veteran, Charlie N. Wingard, appealed a January 11, 2011, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied non-service-connected burial benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 2302. On August 16, 2013, this Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Wingard v. Shinseki 26 Vet.App. 334
Lillie M. Wingard v. Eric K. Shinsekipublic domain
SCHOELEN, Judge: The appellant, Lillie M. Wingard, the daughter of the deceased veteran, Charlie N. Wingard, appeals through counsel a January 11, 2011, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) decision that denied non-service-connected burial benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 2302. Record of Proceedings (R.) at 3-11. 1 This ap
United States v. Dean E. Lilliepublic domain
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge: We consider whether a criminal defendant is entitled to change retained counsel at the last minute before trial. A. Dean Lillie was charged with tax evasion and conspiracy to obstruct the IRS. On the morning trial was to start, Lillie told the court he wanted to replace his appointed counsel, Emily Simon, with William A. Cohan
Lillie v. Egelhoffpublic domain
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Nellie Lou Lillie v. United Statespublic domain
LOGAN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Nellie Lou Lillie appeals from a judgment in favor of the United States in an action tried to the court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. Plaintiff asserts that it was reversible error for the trial judge to view the scene of the accident without providing the parties notice or an opportunity to attend, and with no court r
United States v. Dean E. Lilliepublic domain
53 F.3d 340NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Dean E. LILLIE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-30317. United States Court
Lillie v. Egelhoffpublic domain
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Lillie v. Hunt (In Re Hunt)public domain
323 B.R. 665 (2005) In re Frank Wallace HUNT, Debtor. James and Wanda Lillie, Plaintiffs, v. Frank Wallace Hunt, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 92-27775whb, Adversary No. 92-1060. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee. May 3, 2005. *666 Michael W. Mitchell, Memphis, TN, for Debtor. Jason G. Whitworth, Law Office of
Lillie v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Lillie R. Battle v. Board of Regents of GApublic domain
PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Lillie Battle (“Plaintiff’) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Jeanette K. Huff and Oscar L. Prater (“Defendants”), against Plaintiffs First Amendment Retaliation and False Claims Act claims. We affirm. I. Background Taking the record in the light most favorable
United States v. Mosspublic domain
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: A fatal welding accident occurred on an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in November 2012. Three years after that incident, the government indicted the owner and operator of the platform and several oil platform contractors, charging criminal violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331, et seq., and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.
United States v. Lillypublic domain
HOLMES, Circuit Judge. After federal investigative agents from the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) arrested her fiancé with a quarter pound of methamphetamine, Defendant-Appellant Janet Lilly was contacted by investigative agents from the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (“DCI”). She made several incriminating statements to the DCI agents about
United States v. Boucharebpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. On May 5, 2009, Defendant Jamil Bou-chareb (“Bouchareb”) pled guilty before a United States Magistrate Judge to a two-count Superseding Information, which charged conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 78ff, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5 and 240.10b5-2, and 18 U
Lillie v. Stanford Trust Co.public domain
GUIDRY, J. |aA state agency appeals a trial court’s judgment certifying as a class action the plaintiffs’ negligence claims premised on allegations that the agency’s failure to properly perform its regulatory duties contributed to the injuries they sustained as a result of a -fraudulent investment scheme perpetrated by an individual affiliated with 'a regulated entity.
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: The jury convicted defendants-appellants Lillie Mae Berry and Ella Louise Forbes of acting together to intercept a government benefits check addressed to Forbes’ brother, Jackie Harrell, and to forge an endorsement on the check in an attempt to cash it. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 495 & 1702. Both appellants argue that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges to three black venirepersons violate
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 17-0219 Filed October 11, 2017 LAURA C. LILLIE, n/k/a/ LAURA C. SMIDDY, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MITCHELL R. LILLIE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Jeffrey L. Larson(Contempt), and James M. Richardson (Petition to Modify), Judges. Mi
United States v. Jacksonpublic domain
ORDER AND REASONS MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON, District Judge. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stacey Jackson’s Motion to Dismiss based on Prosecutorial Misconduct (Doc. # 110) is DENIED. BACKGROUND This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct filed by defendant, Stacey Jackson. Specifically, Jackson, contends that the indictment shoul