Cases

PER CURIAM:* Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Fernando Vierra-Garcia raises an argument that is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance

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

MEMORANDUM & ORDER VITALIANO, District Judge. Eduardo Osorio Viera is before the Court on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging his sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Judgment was entered on Viera’s plea of guilty. Upon the findings stated below, the writ is denied. I. BACKGROUND

DECISION This matter comes before this Court for decision following a non-jury trial in the above-entitled action.1 Donald Panarello ("Panarello" or "Plaintiff") alleges that the State of Rhode Island Department of Corrections ("Defendant" or "DOC" or "State") violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. § 4301

16 P.3d 288 (2000) 135 Idaho 191 STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gerald A. BARCELLA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 25216. Court of Appeals of Idaho. September 18, 2000. Review Denied January 17, 2001. *291 Ronaldo A. Coulter, State Appellate Public Defender; Molly J. Huskey, Deputy App

186 Ariz. 449 (1996) 924 P.2d 453 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Gabriel Hurtado NIETO, Jr., Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 94-0583. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A. February 22, 1996. Redesignated as Opinion and Publication Ordered March 11, 1996. Review Denied September 24, 1996.

951 P.2d 1288 (1998) 131 Idaho 61 STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alan Travis BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 22542. Court of Appeals of Idaho. January 2, 1998. *1291 Scott L. Rose, Post Falls, for defendant-appellant. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General, L. La-Mont Anderson, Deputy Attorney Ge

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 23-0704 ══════════ Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., Petitioners, v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal

177 Cal.App.4th 1049 (2009) BRUCE TICHININ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF MORGAN HILL, Defendant and Respondent. No. H031019. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District. September 21, 2009. *1055 Mesirow & Fink, Steven M. Fink; Law Offices of Bruce Tichinin and Bruce Tichinin for Plaintiffs and Appellants.<

KENNARD, J., Concurring. I join Justice Arabian in affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal in favor of defendant. Unlike Justice Arabian, however, I do not resolve this case on the meaning of a provision of the Harbors and Navigation Code. Instead, I conclude that it is properly resolved under settled principles governing the defense of implied assumption of risk that California courts have followed for more than 50 year

123 Cal.App.3d 37 (1981) 176 Cal. Rptr. 320 MOLLIE WINGARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. 20512. Court of Appeals of California, Third District. July 29, 1981. *38 COUNSEL Rishwain & Hastings and Charles L. Hastings for Plaintiff and Appel

PANELLI, J., Concurring and Dissenting. I concur in the majority opinion solely with respect to the result reached. The majority correctly affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the summary judgment entered by the trial court. I dissent, however, from the reasoning of the majority opinion. Instead, I reach a like result by adopting and applying the “consent-based” analysis set fo

28 Cal.App.3d 361 (1972) 104 Cal. Rptr. 566 ADALBERTO FONSECA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. 11964. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two. October 27, 1972. *364 COUNSEL Hidalgo, Aranda & Garcia and Manuel Hidalgo for P

*506OPINION OP THE COURT BY WIRTZ, J. On February 14, 1957, plaintiffs-appellants filed a civil action to redeem lands which had been mortgaged by their grandfather to defendant-appellee and some years later had been foreclosed by entry and possession by the latter. Following a hearing judgment was entered in favor of defendant on March 25, 1959, dismiss

DECISION The issue before the Court relates to the criminal case ofState v. Michael Derderian, case number K1-03-0655A. On February 20, 2003, the Defendant's nightclub, The Station, burned to the ground, killing 100 people. The Defendant was charged with 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter under the criminal negligence theory and 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter under the misdemeanor manslaughter theory.<