Cases

MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioner Ernesto *611Escobar Ortiz’s applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substan

884 F.2d 1524 UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Daniel Phisco RAMIREZ, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Jairo VANEGAS-ORTIZ, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Jose Victor SANTIAGO-ESCOBAR, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Roberto PIEDRAHITA-SANTIAGO, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Anibal PELAEZ-ESCOBAR, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES, Ap

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Santos Chavarria-Ortiz pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court 1 determined an advisory sentencing guideline range of 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment, rejected Cha-varria-Ortiz’s request for a downward variance

566 F.3d 77 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan TURESEO, also known as Daniel J. Ortega, also known as Juan Escobar, also known as Juan Victoriana Fuentes, also known as Danny Ortega Ortiz, also known as Jose Victorino Fuentes, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 07-2933-cr. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: June 23, 2008. Decid

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.

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

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1062 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee, v. ADMILSON PIRES, a/k/a Mikey, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, U.S. District Judge]

*939(Reported below: 10 Fed. Appx. 608); *940(13 Fed. Appx. 541); (20 Fed. Appx. 609); C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

*847(Reported below: 8 Fed. Appx. 704); (15 Fed. Appx. 404); (8 Fed. Appx. 712); (8 Fed. Appx. 710); (7 Fed. Appx. 592); (8 Fed. Appx. 709); (8 Fed. Appx. 706); (8 Fed. Appx. 671); (7 Fed. Appx. 599); *848

Case: 24-50213 Document: 82-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50213 consolidated with FILED

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 20-1368 20-1412 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. RICHARD M. SIMON, Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nos. 20-1369 20-1411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v.

825 F.Supp. 19 (1993) UNITED STATES of America v. Martha CONCEPCION, a/k/a Martha Martinez, a/k/a Martha Morales, a/k/a Julianna Sanchez, a/k/a Sonia Serrano, a/k/a Gladys Torres, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Ana MORILLO, a/k/a Rossi Colon, a/k/a Marta Fernandez, a/k/a Luz Lopez, a/k/a Gloria Velez, a/k/a Jeanette Ruiz, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Jane ARENDELL, a/k/a Maria Gonzalez, a/k/a Annette Rive

808 F.Supp. 166 (1992) UNITED STATES of America v. Martha CONCEPCION, a/k/a Martha Martinez, a/k/a Martha Morales, a/k/a Julianna Sanchez, a/k/a Sonia Serrano, a/k/a Gladys Torres, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Virginia FIGUEROA, a/k/a Patris Gordon, a/k/a Lillian Navarro, a/k/a Juana Martinez, a/k/a Rita Pagan, a/k/a Mary Puig, a/k/a Rosa Rivera, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Theresa Amelia ROMAN, a/k/a

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 18-1687 19-1750 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. NOE SALVADOR PÉREZ-VÁSQUEZ, a/k/a Crazy, Defendant, Appellant. Nos. 19-1027 19-1745 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v

Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Court Judge Omar Hernandez Lozano ("Hernandez Lozano") and Juan Gabriel Ruiz-Baena ("Ruiz-Baena") are charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and § 1326(a) respectively. They seek to have their indictments dismissed because the

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. OVERVIEW Gadiel Romero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping and got a 276-month prison sentence, a below-guidelines sentence-his guidelines range was 360 months to life. Ably represented on appeal by new counsel, Romero principally claims that his incarcerative term is both procedurally flawed and substanti

BOWNES, Circuit Judge. These are six appeals from an order of the district court denying defendants’ motions to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that continuing the trial would violate their rights against double jeopardy. We stayed the trial pending resolution of the double jeopardy issue. See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2041, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). I. <

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), immigration judges are responsible for conducting proceedings that decide the inadmissibility or deportability of a noncitizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1). Although the INA does not specify when jurisdiction vests in an immigration judge, federal regulations provide that jurisdiction vests when a "charging document" is filed with the immigrati

Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Judge *708Juan Angel Porras-Avila ("Porras-Avila" or "Defendant") is charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He seeks to have his indictment dismissed bec

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *707Before the Court is Defendant Antonio Armijo-Banda's ("Armijo-Banda") motion to dismiss the pending indictment. (Dkt. 18). Having considered the parties' briefs, the evidence, and the relevant law, the Court enters the following order. I. BACKGROUND