Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER A. OBRIEN, No. 22-55360 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:20-cv- 01356-AS v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner OPINION of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for

CONERY, Judge. Defendant, Jermaine Christopher Obrien a/k/a Jermaine Christopher O'Brien, was convicted of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon; attempted illegal use of a weapon in the presence of drugs; possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute; and possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). He was adjudicated a fourth felony habitual offender a

Opinion issued June 19, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00166-CR ——————————— KENTRELL O’BRIEN BRUMFIELD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

443 B.R. 117 (2011) In re Cory S. OBRIEN and Mary A. OBrien, Debtors. No. GG 09-00426. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan. January 4, 2011. *122 Jeff A. Moyer, Esq., Grandville, MI, Chapter 7 Trustee. Dawn I. Krupp, Esq., Grand Rapids, MI, for Cory S. OBrien and Mary A. OBrien. OPINION REGARDING TRUST

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Demetrius Obrien Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (200

Opinion GEORGE, C. J.— From the creation of the State Bar Court in 1988 until the present, Business and Professions Code sections 6079.1, subdivision (a), and 6086.65, subdivision (a), have provided that this court appoints all judges of the State Bar Court. Revised versions of these statutes, operative November 1, 2000, provide that of the five judges of the State B

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge. Naomi A. Stinson appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of her action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Ms. Stinson filed an amended complaint against 123 defen

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3944 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:23-cr-00828- DMS-1 v. JORGE ALEJANDRO AVALOS, OPINION

ORDER Stephen Rogers was convicted of knowingly transferring obscene matter to a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 1470; knowingly receiving child pornography, id. § 2252A(a)(2)(A); and enticing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct, id. § 2251(a). After we affirmed his convictions under § 1470 and § 2251(a), United States v. Rogers, 474 Fed.Appx. 463

RYMER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I would not allow Mancinas-Flores another crack at pleading guilty to the firearm charge. Having offered to enter a guilty plea, Mancinas-Flores told the judge during the Rule 11 colloquy: “I’m really not guilty.” The judge then stopped the proceeding. I believe she had discre

498 F.Supp.2d 520 (2007) UNITED STATES of America v. Todd O'BRIEN, Defendant. No. 1:06-CR-165 (GLS). United States District Court, N.D. New York. August 1, 2007. *521 *522 *523 *524 *525

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: The United States has filed an in rem action (Case No. 11 C 4175) seeking forfeiture of about $6.7 million held in futures trading accounts. The money, the parties agree, belongs to an affiliate of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. Several insurance companies that paid billions of dollars on their insureds’ property dama

794 F.Supp. 1358 (1992) David SUMNER v. UNITED STATES of America. No. 3:90-0204. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. April 29, 1992. *1359 *1360 Dale M. Quillen, Irene R. Haude, James F. Neal, Thomas H. Dundon, Neal & Harwell, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff.<

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 199 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 200 This is the second appeal arising from a subcontractor's effort to recover damages for cost overruns in a public works pr

ORDER SPATT, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion by the Stephen D. Siegfried (“Siegfried” or the “plaintiff’) to quash a subpoena duces tecum number 6357 issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to Northfork Bank, Mattituck, New York, pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. app. 3, § 6(a)(4), and in accordance with the Right to F

*677Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented is whether respondent may be convicted for violating 18 U. S. C. § 1382, which makes it unlawful to reenter a military base after having been barred by the commanding officer. Respondent attended an open house at a military base some nine years after the commanding officer o

PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ tax refund suit because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The appeal presents questions about the constitutionality of a

733 N.W.2d 322 (2007) 2007 WI App 131 UNITED RENTALS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MADISON, Defendant-Respondent. No. 2005AP1440. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Submitted on Briefs December 7, 2005. Opinion Filed April 26, 2007. *323 On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause

MEMORANDUM OPINION DAVIS, District Judge. In this removed action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, First American Title Insurance Co. (“First American”) and United General Title Insurance Co. (“United General”) engaged in a “uniform and illegal practice,” and designed and executed “a scheme to cheat consumers,” in respect to Defendants’ issuance of title insurance policies to homeowners in Maryland who ob

By the Court. The principal objection urged against the plain tiff’s recovery, in this case, arose out of the provisions of the act incorporating the Union Marine and Fire Insurance Company, by which it was required that their capital stock should, within six months after payment, be invested in the funded debt of the United States, or of this commonwealth, or in the stock of some incorporated banking