Cases

United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. James P. McGRATH Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201800279 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Decided: 14 February 2

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before KISOR, FLUHR, and FLINTOFT Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Patrick E. McGRATH Gunnery Sergeant (E-7), U.S. Marine Corps

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before KISOR, GANNON, and FLINTOFT Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Patrick E. McGRATH Gunnery Sergeant (E-7), U.S. Marine Corps

OPINION OF THE COURT NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Patricia McGrath, formerly known as Richard Patrick McGrath,1 was convicted *208of two counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and five counts of using, carrying, brandishing, or discharging a firearm during commission of a violent crime in violation

89 F.Supp.2d 569 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, v. Richard Patrick McGRATH, a/k/a Patricia McGrath. No. 99-554. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. February 7, 2000. *570 *571 Thomas Zaleski, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, PA, for U.S. Anne Dixon, Philadelphia, PA, for R

143 F.Supp.2d 184 (2001) UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff v. Rev. Lester MCGRATH-ANDINO Defendant No. CRIM. 00-523(SEC). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. April 23, 2001. Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco, Chris Gramissiane, U.S. Attorney's Office District of P.R., Criminal Division, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Linda Bachiel, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.</

WISS, Judge (dissenting): I join fully in the dissenting opinion of the Chief Judge. Pursuant to his rationale, I agree that appellant did not waive his Sixth Amendment confrontation and cross-examination rights, so appellant’s reliance upon those rights remains viable. The Government’s responsibility in this context, then, was either to produce the witness (which assumes her availability) or to demonstrate her

143 B.R. 820 (1992) UNITED STATES v. James T. McGRATH. Civ. No. K-90-944C. United States District Court, D. Maryland. August 6, 1992. *821 Richard D. Bennett, U.S. Atty. and Larry D. Adams, Asst. U.S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for the U.S. Brenda A. Clark, Mann & Clark, P.A., Baltimore, Md., for James T. McGrath. F

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4277 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STEPHEN V. MCGRATH, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:18-cr-00038-PWG-1

ORDER ALLEGRA, Judge: This matter is before the court on the parties’ proposed order concerning the management of electronic discovery (e-dis-eovery) pursuant to RCFC 1, 16, and 26(c), as well as Fed.R.Evid. 502(d). See Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 219 (2010) (discussing Fed.R.Evid. 502(d)). Upon consideration of the proposed order (portions of which are adopted below)

OPINION AND ORDER EMILY C. HEWITT, Judge. Before the court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (defendant’s Motion or Def.’s Mot.), filed October 27, 2008, plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment Advacary [sic]1 Motion to Dismiss[] This Petition (plaintiffs Response or Pl.’s Resp.), deemed filed on December 4, 20082 and Defendant’s Reply in Sup

MEMORANDUM DECISION WERKER, District Judge. Defendants Buckle, Schaller and McGrath have moved to suppress evidence seized from them on the evening of January 31, 1978. These defendants previously moved to suppress the same evidence prior to indictment under Rule 41(e) before Judge Lasker. He denied their motion in a nine page opinion, United States v. McGrath et al. 448 F.Supp. 1338 (S.D.N.Y.

601 F.2d 577 U. S.v.McGrath No. 78-1975 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit 6/11/79 1 W.D.Pa. AFFIRMED

MEMORANDUM DECISION WERKER, District Judge. Defendant Sylvester Scigowski moves pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e) for an order requiring the government to disclose and turn over the grand jury minutes of this action and pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12 to dismiss the indictment on grounds that it was obtained through an abuse of the grand jury in violation of his fifth amendment rights.

MEMORANDUM DECISION WERKER, District Judge. Defendant Jacques Erlichson moves to suppress post-indictment, post-arrest statements given to agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) on grounds that his fifth and sixth amendment rights were violated. He was indicted on June 15, 1978 for violations of the federal narcotics laws and arrested a week thereafter. In an affidavit submi

ORDER DIANE J. HUMETEWA, District Judge Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Relator’s First Amended Complaint (“AC”) with prejudice by defendants Microsemi Corporation and White Electronic Designs Corporation (“WEDC”) (Doc. 34) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ.P. 9(b).1 I. Background A. Procedural

448 F.Supp. 1338 (1978) UNITED STATES of America, v. James McGRATH, John Schaller, Bruce Buckle and Joan de la Cova, Defendants. No. M-11-188. United States District Court, S. D. New York. April 25, 1978. *1339 Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y., New York City, for United States; William J. Kelleher, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.