Cases

ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. The government indicted Defendant Daniel Rigmaiden on July 23, 2008, charging him with 50 counts of mail and wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy. Doc. 3. A Superseding Indictment was filed on January 27, 2010. Doc. 200. The charges arise from an alleged scheme to obtain fraudulent tax refunds by filing electronic tax returns in the names of numer

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 95-30421 UNITES STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS KENNETH O. PAYNE; TOMMY RIGMAIDEN; ELIJAH MARTIN, JR., Defendants-Appellants. *******************************************************************

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

SUMMARY ORDER Marc Munson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered September 25, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.). Following a jury trial, Munson was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). He was sentenced to 252 months’ imprisonment and five years’

SUMMARY ORDER Marc Munson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered September 25, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.). Following a jury trial, Munson was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). He was sentenced to 252 months’ imprisonment and five years’

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: We consider three consolidated appeals from five individuals convicted of various counts of conspiracy to distribute, and distribution of, cocaine base (“crack”) in the Lake Charles, Louisiana area. Two of the defendants were also convicted of using a firearm in relátion to a drug-trafficking transaction. The government admits that the firearm conviction

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3 DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, United States District Judge On August 2, 2017, the court held a hearing on the motions of defendant Pur-vis Lamar Ellis to suppress evidence, obtained from use.of Stingrays on behalf of all defendants; to suppress evidence seized from Apartment 212 on behalf of all defendants; and to sever. The court DE

OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge I. INTRODUCTION The Second Superseding Indictment herein arises from a long-running investigation into an allegedly large scale drug trafficking and money laundering organization. More specifically, the First Superseding Indictment, filed March 16, 2016, charges Defendants Toye Tutis (hereinafter, “Defendant Tutis” or “Toye Tutis”) and Jazmin Vega (hereina

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. On April 9, 2014, the Government filed a 78-count criminal indictment against the Defendant William Scully, also known as “Liam Scully” (“Scully” or “the Defendant”), and codefendant Shahrad Rodi La-meh (“Lameh”)(collectively “the Defendants”). The Government charged the Defendants, as owners and operators of Pharma-logical, Inc. d/b/

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judges WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, KING, GREGORY, SHEDD, DUNCAN, AGEE, KEENAN, DIAZ and HARRIS joined. Judge WILKINSON wrote a separate concurring opinion. Judge WYNN wrote a dissenting opinion in which Judges FLOYD and THACKER joined. ON REHEARING EN BANC DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: In Uni

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment: I concur in the judgment affirming Defendants’ convictions and sentences. But, with respect, I dissent from the holding that the government violated Defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights. The majority concludes that the government did so when it obtained, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) court ord

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 95-30421 UNITES STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS KENNETH O. PAYNE; TOMMY RIGMAIDEN; ELIJAH MARTIN, JR., Defendants-Appellants. *******************************************************************

*748 OPINION DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR A PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICE BRIAN L. OWSLEY, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to a written and sworn application pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3122(a)(1), 3127(5), and 2703(c)(1) by an Assistant United States Attorney who is an attorney for the go

*469OPINION HORN, Judge. The above-captioned case was initially assigned to this judge on November 30, 1995, for the purpose of conducting a review of the special master’s decision, issued October 31, 1995. Epstein v. Sec’y DHHS, Case No. 90-3242V, Office of Spec.Mstr., October 31,1995. In her decision, the special master denied compensation

746 Submitted April 29, 2020, vacated and remanded February 24, 2022 STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CLIFFORD WILLIAM SHAW, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 18CR43193; A168553 507 P3d 280 Defendant appeals from a judg

67 Submitted September 28, 2020, affirmed July 8, petition for review denied November 24, 2021 (368 Or 787) CITY OF EUGENE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROD ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 18CR00778; A167904

287 Argued and submitted January 30, 2020; remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed October 27, 2021 STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JACOBI BROSHAWN THORNSBERRY, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 17CR75871; A167617 501 P3d 1

229 Argued and submitted November 10, 2021; convictions on Counts 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed April 20; petition for review denied October 6, 2022 (370 Or 303) STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ADAM JOSEPH TARDIE, Defendant-Appellant.

BARRY W. ASHE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Merritt Hospitality, LLC ("Merritt"),1 to which plaintiff John Doe ("Doe")2 responds in opposition,3 and in further support of which Merritt replies.4 Having considered the parties' memoranda and the applicable law,