Cases

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5673 SCOTT NALE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-50108) Argued: September 27, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, SMITH, United State

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MURNAGHAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge SMITH and Senior Judge MICHAEL joined. OPINION MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge: . A Grand Jury returned a four count indictment against Scott Nale for 1) carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119; 2) using and carrying a firearm in connection with th

239 B.R. 235 (1999) In re Margaret Louise NALE, Debtor. Margaret Louise Nale, Plaintiff, v. Eldon J. Ray and Marie H. Ray, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 92-24096 RJB. Adversary No. 99-1075 RJB. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado. September 14, 1999. *236 Sharon W. Grossenbach, Law Office of Sharon W. Grossenbach, Denver

03/22/2022 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 26, 2022 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SONYA NALE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County Nos. 2019-CR-19, 2019-CR-20 William B. Acree, Senior Judge No. E2021-00276-CCA-R9-CD The D

03/22/2022 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 26, 2022 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SONYA NALE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County Nos. 2019-CR-19, 2019-CR-20 William B. Acree, Senior Judge ________________________________

703 F.Supp.2d 714 (2010) Fayette L. NALE, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY UAW RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant. No. 09-cv-13401. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 31, 2010. *715 Sherry A. Wells, Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiff. David R. Deromedi, Sherry D. O'Neal, Dickinson Wright, Detroit, MI,

BY THE COURT: A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above causes shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Defendant-appellant Eduardo Colon-Nales appeals his conviction following a guilty plea to a charge of carjacking with intent to cause serious bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2). At the sentencing hearing, the district court judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Colon-Nales caused serious bodily harm to

KAREN GREN SCHOLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This Order addresses Defendants'1 Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 92]. For the reasons below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. *617I. BACKGROUND A. The Federal Benefit Payment System

JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J. *686On September 24, 2012, Peter D. Grubea ("Relator") filed a "qui tarn" action on behalf of the United States of America (the "Government") against Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates ("Rosicki"), Enterprise Process Service, Inc. ("Enterprise"), Paramount Land, Inc. ("Paramount"), Threshold Land, Inc. ("Threshold") (co

871 S.W.2d 674 (1994) Randy Scott NALE and Wife, Petitioners-Appellants, and Tennessee Conference Adoption Service, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell Raymont ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 18, 1994. *675 Robert D. Tuke, Garry K. Grooms, Kathryn A. Stephenson, Farris, Warfield & Kanaday, Nashv

91 F.Supp.2d 141 (1999) UNITED STATES of America v. Francis P. SALEMME, et al. United States of America v. John Martorano Nos. Cr. 94-10287-MLW, Cr. 97-10009-MLW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. September 15, 1999. Clerical Corrections, December 23, 1999. *142

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1497 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAIWO ONAMUTI, Defendant-Appellant ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

CYR, Circuit Judge. Following his conviction on a money laundering charge, 18 U.S.C. § 1956, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, William Tibolt appeals two trial court rulings relating to incriminating financial records seized from his residence in a warrantless search. Finding no error, we affirm. I

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: Defendants-appellants (defendants) were convicted of one count of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute marihuana *1485 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant-appellant David Castillo was additionally found guilty of a second count of possession with inte

879 F.Supp. 149 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles H. GILL, Jr., Defendant. Crim. No. 95-03-P-C. United States District Court, D. Maine. March 15, 1995. *150 Helen Kazanjian, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, ME, for Government. Stuart W. Tisdale, Jr., Tisdale & Nale, Portland, ME, for defendant. <

870 F.Supp. 60 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, v. Evgueni KOROLKOV and Ekaterina Korolkova, Defendants. No. S 1 94 Cr. 691 (RWS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 7, 1994. Mary Jo White, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Dietrich L. Snell, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for U.S. Leonard F. Joy, Legal Aid Soc., Fed. Defender Div., New

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. RAFAEL PÉREZ-RODRÍGUEZ, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Pedro A. Delgado-Hernández, U.S. District Judge]

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-2168 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACQUES S. GHOLSTON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GLASSER, District Judge: James Heimerle moves to quash a subpoena commanding him to appear as a witness at trial. Heimerle, who is currently on probation, argues that the grant of statutory immunity he anticipates receiving is inadequate to protect his fifth amendment rights; specifically, Heimerle fears that his immunized testimony may be used against him in a future probatio