Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1343 WALTER ACEITUNO, Petitioner, Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. John J. McConnell, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1971 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JESUS LEONARDO CASTILLO-MARTINEZ, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1388 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ANTHONY J. COLÓN-MALDONADO, a/k/a/ Guelo, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]

CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Defendant Abel Martinez Tavera and his co-defendant Placido Ventura Mendoza were together during the commission of the crime for which Defendant was convicted. Other than Defendant himself, Mendoza was the only witness who could have corroborated Defendant’s version of *715events, and Defendant admits that he knew as much

530 F.Supp.2d 1224 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Larry LUJAN, Kacey Lamunyon, and Eugenio Medina, Defendants. No. CR 05-924 RB. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. January 14, 2008. *1225 *1226 *1227 *

281 F.Supp.2d 498 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, v. Richard GARCIA-JURADO, Defendant. No. 02-CR-1439. United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 27, 2003. *499 *500 Alphonzo Grant, United States Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

228 F.Supp.2d 428 (2002) UNITED STATES of America v. Rogelio FIGUEROA-TAVERAS, Defendant. No. 02 CR. 333(RPP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 22, 2002. *429 Virginia L. Chavez, Assist. U.S. Atty., U. S. Atty. Office, Criminal Div., New York City, for U.S. OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT P. P

MESKILL, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant Pablo Fernandez-Antonia (Fernandez-Antonia) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Buchwald, /., convicting him, after a guilty plea, of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by unlawfully entering the United States after having been removed.

Case: 24-60592 Document: 91-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 14, 2026

Case: 24-60592 Document: 106-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 14, 2026

OPINION Justice INDEGLIA, for the Court. George Bouffard (Bouffard or defendant) appeals from an order partly denying his motion to correct his sentence under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, the defendant challenges the resulting restructure of his sentencing package by the hearing justice upon the determination that the particular sentence at issue was e

Catterson, J. (dissenting). Because there is no evidence or testimony in the record that indicates the basis for the stop of the defendant’s car, much less that the police established reasonable suspicion for the stop, I believe the defendant was entitled, at the very least, to a suppression hearing. I, therefore, respectfully dissent. On May 11, 2004, police stopped the defendant while she was riding in an auto

958 A.2d 1159 (2008) STATE v. Michael MENDOZA. No. 2005-308-C.A. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. November 5, 2008. Aaron L. Weisman, Providence, for Plaintiff. C. Daniel Schrock, for Defendant. Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ. *1160 OPINION Justice FLAHE

OPINION AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 27), regarding defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (Rule 12(c)) (Docket No. 22), which plaintiffs did not oppose. Having considered the magistrate judge’s recommendations, and the parties’ objections and responses, the Court ADOPTS the

ACCEPTED 03-14-00765-CV 4402607 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

ACCEPTED 03-14-00518-CV 6061835 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS