Cases

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

MAY, Judge: Api>ellant was convicted pursuant to his pleas, by special court-martial, military judge sitting alone, of one specification of unauthorized absence of approximately four months, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 886; nine specifications of bad check offenses in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 923a; one specification of wrongful possession of an alter

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

84 F.Supp.2d 172 (1999) FOXBOROUGH SAVINGS BANK, Plaintiff, v. Sahag S. PETROSIAN, Dorothy L. Petrosian, Sims and Sims, P.C., Internal Revenue Service, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Department of Revenue), Defendants. No. Civ.A. 99-11435-REK. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 29, 1999. Kevin J. Sullivan, Law Offices of Kevin J. Sullivan, B

PER CURIAM. Vatchagan Petrosian appeals his counterfeit trafficking, mail fraud, and conspiracy convictions. We affirm. I. Petrosian and two associates purchased genuine Coca-Cola bottles, filled them with a cola-like carbonated beverage that was not Coca-Cola, and told purchasers the beverage was Coca-Cola. Petrosian was cha

MEMORANDUM ** Clifford G. Birdinground, a member of the Crow Tribe, challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to receiving a bribe in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). We affirm. Birdinground makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court should have appointed an interpreter at the guilty plea hearing; (2) the district court failed to

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: Appellees Ibrahim Hanafy, Mohamed Mokbel, Samer Quassas and Adel Saadat were found guilty by a jury of mislabeling and trademark infringement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 333(a)(2) and 321(m). The Appellees were also found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy charges flowing from the above offenses. The district court over

124 F.Supp.2d 1016 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, v. Ibrahim Elsayed HANAFY (8) Mohamed M. Mokbel (10) Samer Samad Quassas (11) Adel Hisham Saadat (13) No. CRIM.A.3:99-CR-041-L. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. December 5, 2000. *1017 Paul E. Coggins, Jr., Joseph M. Revesz, Ass't U.S. Atty., Irma C. Ra

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge: Santillan was prosecuted under the Lacey Act for bringing ten baby parrots across the border from Tijuana. His appeal raises, among other issues, a significant question about the mens rea needed under the Lacey Act. Facts Santillan was convicted of smuggling

Sections I, VI and VII were authored by Judge REINHARDT; sections II, III, IV, V and VIII by Judge RYMER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge RYMER. Attorney Patrick Frega and former California Superior Court judges James Mal-leus and Dennis Adams appeal their convictions following a jury trial for conspiring to conduct the affairs of the San Diego Superior Court through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of th

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: Guillermo Vallejo appeals his conviction under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952, and 960 for importation and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. We consider whether expert testimony detailing the structure of drug trafficking organizations may be routinely introduced in drug importation cases, regardless of whether the defendant is charged with a

PER CURIAM: Frank Fiorillo and Art Krueger appeal their convictions for wire fraud and violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) (42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.). Fiorillo also appeals his convictions for receiving explosives without a permit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

TAKASUGI, Senior District Judge: Mika Gergen (“Gergen”) appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for violating 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), arguing that the Supreme Court’s holding in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994), requires the government to prove that he knew of the particular characteristics of the shotgun which

MALONE, Judge: At a special court-martial consisting of the military judge sitting alone, appellant was convicted contrary to his pleas of three specifications of disobeying the orders of superior noncommissioned officers and one specification of disrespect, each in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 10 U.S.C. § 891. He was acquitted of the offense of behaving with disrespect to a superior commi

Filed 1/27/25; Certified for Publication 2/19/25 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MICHELLE ARZATE et al., B336829 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV23497) v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defen

652 F.3d 1157 (2011) Jose RODRIGUEZ-VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 09-72060. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 6, 2011. Filed July 21, 2011. *1158 Lori B. Schoenberg, Law Offices of John R. Perry, P.C., Encino, CA, for the peti

Timothy P. Cannon, Judge, dissenting. {¶ 55} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. {¶ 56} First, I believe that as an expert witness for the state, Sergeant Richissin was permitted to testify as to the identity of the companies’ trademarks. He testified that he had been trained by representatives from Gucci, Prada, *337

WATERMAN, Justice. In this appeal, we must decide whether the defendant is entitled to an automatic new trial after the district court, over his objection, required a standby interpreter for his jury trial. The defendant had requested an interpreter for his initial bond hearing, and one was provided for all pretrial hearings. On.the. morni

AP-77,036 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/6/2015 12:12:57 PM Accepted 10/6/2015 12:37:53 PM

Baylson, District Judge. I. Introduction In this case, Plaintiff Lontex Corporation ("Lontex") alleges that Defendant Nike, Inc. ("Nike") committed trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act and state law by selling athletic apparel with Lontex's registered "COOL COMPRESSION" mark without authorization. The First Amended Complaint (ECF 20, "FAC") alleges five Counts: