Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Cesar Soto-Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 19-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in 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), Soto-Flores’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to w

954 F.2d 722 U.S.v.Soto-Flores* NO. 91-5590 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Feb 05, 1992 1 Appeal From: W.D.Tex. 2

543 U.S. 1095 GONZALEZ-GONZALES, AKA SOTO FLORESv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-7703. Supreme Court of United States. January 18, 2005. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 108 Fed. Appx. 914.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

SUMMARY ORDER Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, defendants-appellants Ramon Gomez and David Castellano-Nunez were convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Both defendants now appeal: Gomez from a July 31, 2014 judgment that principally sentence

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-appellant Antovany Acosta appeals from a judgment entered on November 14, 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut convicting him, following a jury trial, of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin, and of possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. The district court sentenced Acosta principally to 1

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: This matter makes it appropriate that we render for this Circuit a first interpretation of the provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3141 et seq. (1985). For the reasons stated herein, we find that the petitioners have demonstrated procedural error sufficient to require that we GRANT the motion for review of the order below and t

*1116542 U. S. 939; 542 U. S. 911; 542 U. S. 912; 542 U. S. 912; 542 U. S. 926; 542 U. S. 927; 542 U. S. 915; 542 U. S. 927; 542 U. S. 927; 542 U. S. 931; and *1117

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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.

275 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellee,v.JALIL GAZIR SUED-JIMENEZ, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellee,v.ELGA MARI CASTRO-RAMOS, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellee,v.ELLIOT VICENTE CASTRO-TIRADO, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellee,v.JOSE LUIS ROMERO-BURGOS, Defendant, Appellant.

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

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

*1211(Reported below: 79 Fed. Appx. 70); (79 Fed. Appx. 69); (79 Fed. Appx. 18); (79 Fed. Appx. 17); (79 Fed. Appx. 75); (78 Fed. Appx. 425); (79 Fed. Appx. 40); (79 Fed. Appx. 35); *1212(79 Fed. Appx. 37);

*1211(Reported below: 79 Fed. Appx. 70); (79 Fed. Appx. 69); (79 Fed. Appx. 18); (79 Fed. Appx. 17); (79 Fed. Appx. 75); (78 Fed. Appx. 425); (79 Fed. Appx. 40); (79 Fed. Appx. 35); *1212(79 Fed. Appx. 37);

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1206 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. LESTER ACEITUNO, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Landya B. McCafferty, U.S. District Judge]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1262 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. STEVE LEON WAITHE, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]