Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Julia Ann Romo appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the four-month sentence imposed upon revocation. *500Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Romo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counse

MEMORANDUM ** Miguel Romo-Romo appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Romo-Romo contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court’s failure to consider the sentencing factors listed in 18

674 F.3d 1246 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Manuel ROMO-VILLALOBOS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-15350. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. March 20, 2012. *1247 Michelle Thresher Taylor, Donald L. Hansen, Robert E. O'Neill, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Adam Benjamin Alle

MEMORANDUM ** Miguel Romo-Romo appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Romo-Romo contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court’s failure to consider the sentencing factors listed in 18

BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in the decision of the panel, and agree the evidence discovered during the search of Romo-Corrales’ home was admissible pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine. I write separately to express my concern over the kind of search at issue here. Putting aside momentarily the issue of inevitable discovery, this case presents a difficult issue: whe

454 F.Supp.2d 887 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Leopoldo ROMO, Defendant. No. 4:04CR3111. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. October 3, 2006. *888 Lynnett M. Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff. Joel G. Lonowski, Morrow, Poppe Law Firm, John C. Vanderslice, Federal

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 04-30131 Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  D.C. No. CR-02-00134-SEH ROBERT ALLEN ROMO, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court

MEMORANDUM** Efrain Romo-Alcaraz appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 45-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. *254Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Romo-Alcaraz has filed a brief stating that there are no gr

PER CURIAM.* Luis Enrique Romo-Romero appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Romo-Romero complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Romo-Romero thu

170 F.Supp.2d 1127 (2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Artemisa ROMO-SANCHEZ, Defendant. No. 00-40112-04-DES. United States District Court, D. Kansas. April 23, 2001. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SAFFELS, District Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant Artemisa Romo-Sanchez' Motion for Appeal of Order of Detention (Doc.

105 F.3d 670 97 CJ C.A.R. 66 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or

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

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

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Lara-Romo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Lara-Romo has riot filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Cardenas-Romo, former federal prisoner #23653-208, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his exclusion from rehabilitation programs and halfway houses. As Cardenas-Romo has been released from Bureau of Prisons custody, we grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.E

696 F.2d 995 *U. S.v.Romo 82-2298 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 1/7/83 1 S.D.Tex. AFFIRMED 2 ---------------

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

755 F.2d 937 U.S.v.Romo-Barron 84-1217 United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. 2/20/85 1 E.D.Cal. AFFIRMED

685 F.2d 1384 *U. S.v.Romo 82-2103 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 9/3/82 1 S.D.Tex. AFFIRMED 2 ---------------

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.