Cases

RYAN, Circuit Judge. The defendants, Curtis W. Rippy and Danny W. Rippy, appeal a number of issues arising from their federal convictions for the interstate transport of stolen motor vehicles and operation of a stolen vehicle “chop shop.” For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the conviction and sentence of Danny Rippy. We also affirm the conviction of Curtis Rippy, but because we find that the district court improp

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before POND, MORRIS, and JUETTEN Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Private First Class DONIVAN C. RIPPY United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20230633 Headquarters, Joint Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk Maureen A. Kohn, Military Judge Colonel Travis W. Elms, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Colonel Philip M. Staten, JA; Major Robert D. Luyties, JA (on brief); Lieutenant Colonel Autumn R. Porter, JA; Major Robert D. Luyt

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge HARRIS and Senior Judge HAMILTON joined. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Cooperative Bank (“FDIC-R”), brought this civil action against the several officers and directors o

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

537 U.S. 812 RIPPY, BY NEXT FRIENDS, RIPPY ET UX.v.HATTAWAY, COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ET AL. No. 01-1506. Supreme Court of United States. October 7, 2002. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

322 A.2d 276 (1974) Robert E. RIPPY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 7477. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued May 16, 1974. Decided July 10, 1974. Rehearing en Banc Denied August 21, 1974. *277 James E. Caulfield, appointed by this court, for appellant. Steven R. Scha

Opinion Per Curiam. PER CURIAM: Convicted by a jury on three counts of unlawful distribution of heroin 1 and one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, 2 all on testimony of three sales of heroin to an undercover agent

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FOR PUBLICATION In re L. D. RIPPY, Minor. November 14, 2019

ACCEPTED 03-15-00422-CV 7320560 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

455 B.R. 130 (2011) Shannon STURM, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Appellee. Case No. 11 CV 199. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. July 14, 2011. *131 Gary E. Horn, Toledo, OH, for Appellant. Derrick V. Rippy, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Cleveland, OH, for Appellee. MEMORAND

MEMORANDUM * Merced Lopez Ramirez appeals his conviction and sentence under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 for conspiring to manufacture and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. We affirm the conviction, and remand the sentence. The issuance of a search warrant is reviewed for clear error, to determine whether there was a substantial basis to conclude that the warrant w

BOGGS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. From the pleadings and from the decision of the Tennessee courts in the underlying habeas corpus case, we know that Travis Rippy was unlawfully detained by the Tennessee Department of Human Services, in violation of his and his parents’ constitutional rights to due process. Under Tennessee law, an adjudicatory hearing should have been held within thirty days of the time that he

MEMORANDUM ** Appellants Nicolas Rodriguez and Kedrin Kizzee challenge (1) their convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and (2) their sentences. We affirm their convictions but remand their sentences pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). The appellants challenge

MEMORANDUM** Anthony Keith Hart appeals his conviction and 12-month plus one-day sentence imposed after his jury trial for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Hart has filed

MEMORANDUM ** Artemio Salgado Guadarrama appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Guadarrama has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel o

MEMORANDUM** Daniel Bocanegra appeals the judgment and 57-month sentence, imposed pursuant to his guilty plea for being a previously deported alien found in the United States, *243in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bocane-gra’s counsel has filed a brief stat

MEMORANDUM** Defendant-Appellant Kenneth Krause appeals his conviction for “enhanced” assault on a federal officer or employee in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a), 111(b). Section 111(b) provides that “[wjhoever, in the commission of [assault against designated federal officials], uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a def

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Douglas E. Rippey ("appellant"), appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas for one count of possession of crack cocaine, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11. {¶ 2} The following description of events was adduced at trial. Shortly after 2 a.m. on April 8, 20

626 A.2d 334 (1993) STATE of Maine v. Theodore RIPPY. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued February 4, 1993. Decided May 28, 1993. *335 R. Christopher Almy (orally), Dist. Atty., C. Daniel Wood, Law Student Intern, Bangor, for State. Charles Hodsdon (orally), Bangor, for defendant. Before WATHEN, C.J., and GLASSM

KANNE, Circuit Judge. In 2009, the United States and the State of Wisconsin (“the Governments”) filed suit in federal district court against eleven of the potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) in an environmental cleanup, seeking response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (CERCLA).