Cases

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Santos J. Miranda-Martinez (“Miranda”) appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to drug trafficking crimes. He argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the government breached the terms of his plea agreement, and because the district court erroneously imposed a two-level firearm enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Find

MEMORANDUM** Gregorio Miranda-Martinez pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He contends on appeal that his conviction should be vacated because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. We reject that contention and we affirm. DISCUSSION Miranda-Martinez relies on United States v. Vonn, 2

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

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

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

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant Alexis Miranda-Ortiz (“Ortiz”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mukasey, J.) imposing a minimum ten-year sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (1988) following Ortiz’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine in

2. At about 4:15 a.m. on December 3, 2015, Garcia was arrested at his home on drug dealing charges and placed in the back of a police car. See Redacted Superseding Indictment at 1-2, filed March 16, 2016 (Doc. 49)("Garcia Indictment"); Transcript of Motion Proceedings at 138:20-21 (held April 13, 2017)(Lerner), filed May 3, 2017 (Doc. 254)("April Tr."); Transcript of Motion Proceedings at May Tr. at 22:23-25 (held May 4, 2017)(Adams, Sainato), file

SUMMARY ORDER Defendants Alejandro Degante-Galeno, Alberto Jesus Martinez-Miranda, Manuel Gomez-Batana, and Isidro Degante-Gale-no stand convicted after guilty pleas of one count of conspiracy to violate the Travel Act in furtherance of a prostitution enterprise. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1952. Each defendant was sentenced principally to an above-Guidelines, statutory-maximum term of 60 months’ imprisonment, and each argues on appeal

650 F.3d 65 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Janet Caldero, Celia I. Calderon, Martha Chellemi, Salih Chioke, Andrew Clement, Kristen D'Alessio, Laura Daniele, Charmaine Didonato, Dawn L. Ellis, Marcia P. Jarrett, Mary Kachadourian, Kathleen Luebkert, Adele A. McGreal, Margaret McMahon, Marianne Manousakis, Sandra D. Morton, Maureen Quinn, Harry Santana, Carl D. Smith, Kim Tatum, Frank Valdez, and Irene Wolkiewicz,

PER CURIAM: This criminal case involves the prosecution of a large-scale sex-trafficking enterprise in the New York City area. 1 For several years, Defendants-Appellants Valentin Jiamez-Dolores and Pedro De-gante-Galeno participated in the prostitution ring, which involved

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge. Before the court are Defendants Sally Hand-Bostick and Elizabeth Spinelli’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 7, 2011; and the United States’ Motion to File Supplemental Authority, filed September 2, 2011. After carefully reviewing the motions, briefs, appendices, response, reply, record, and applicable law, the court grants in

584 F.3d 351 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Elba GARCÍA-PASTRANA, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Héctor René Lugo-Ríos, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan Ramos-Hernández, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Felipe Román-Lozada, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan Roldán

697 F.Supp.2d 244 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Wilfredo ROSARIO-CAMACHO, Luis Rodriguez-Sostre, Josue Perez-Mercado, Ramon Maysonet-Soler, Jose Negron-Sostre, Defendants. Criminal No. 08-310 (FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. March 22, 2010. David Ramos-Pagan, Jorge L. Armenteros-Chervoni, San Juan, PR, for Defendant Jose Rodrigue

*1180C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 100 Fed. Appx. 524; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 116 Fed. Appx. 247; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 104 Fed. Appx. 436; C. A. 8th Cir. Reported below: 367 F. 3d 805; *1181No. 04-7844. No

246 F.Supp.2d 1250 (2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose DENIS, Defendant. No. 99-714-CR-MORENO. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. December 3, 2002. *1251 Frederick Steven Robbins, Robbins Tunkey Ross Amsel Raben, Miami, FL, Reuben Camper Cahn, Fed. Public Defender's Office, Miami, FL, Paul Domenic Petruzz

MICHEL, Circuit Judge. This suit was brought by certain present and former United States Border Patrol agents, alleging that the government wrongly and willfully failed to pay the plaintiffs overtime wages at a time-and-a-half rate as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). The government conceded that the plaintiffs had not been paid for overtime, but contended that all of the various position

350 F.3d 1216 Rowdy D. ADAMS, Ricardo E. Aguirre, Sheri L. Althoff, Luis R. Alvarado, Luis A. Amavizca, Paul H. Ammerman, Paul A. Anderson, Jaime M. Arras, Larry G. Arthurs, Larry H. Arthurs, Martha I. Arvizu, James R. Ash, David J. Astle, John T. Attanasio, Meri L. Axberg, Albert Bailey, Jr., Robert V. Bakowski, Donald L. Barley, John C. Bates, James W. Baumann, Paul A. Beeson, James S. Bendorf, David P. Bennett, Frank J. Beverly, William L. Black

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.

C. A: 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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