Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Shane Travis Warrant appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Warrant contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because evidence obtained during a traffic stop was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Warrant waived the right to a

MEMORANDUM ** Shane Travis Warrant appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Warrant contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because evidence obtained during a traffic stop was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Warrant waived the right to a

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before CAMPANELLA, SALUSSOLIA, and CELTNIEKS Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Warrant Officer One GRAHAM H. SMITH United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20160150 Headquart

OPINION OF THE COURT WOLFE, Judge: Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) Elmer Hoffman, III, appeals his convictions of several sexual offenses involving four girls, three of whom were his children. A panel sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant of three specifications of rape of a child, one specification of abusive sexual contact, and three

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0069P (6th Cir.) File Name: 00a0069p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ ;  98-2129  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellant

521 F.Supp. 190 (1981) UNITED STATES of America v. In the Matter of a WARRANT AUTHORIZING the INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN the PREMISES KNOWN AS the GROUND FLOOR OF 165 ATWELLS AVENUE, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND. No. M81-18. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. August 12, 1981. *191 James H. Leavey, Sp. Ass

SUPERIOR COURT IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT Docket: 2482SW00010 Dates: September 8, 2025 Present: Mark A. Hallal

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1730 In re: SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED JUNE 13, 2019 ____________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at B

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1730 In re: SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED JUNE 13, 2019 ____________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at B

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-1545L (Filed: March 23, 2021) ) FRANK PENNA and ) LISA PENNA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-945C (E-Filed: April 2, 2019) ) NEIL ZACCARI, ) Copyright; 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) ) (2012); Claim for Infringement of Plaintiff, )

*33United States v. Rigaud , 684 F.3d 169, 173 (1st Cir. 2012). To meet this burden, a defendant "must prove that the affiant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the allegations. Recklessness may be inferred from circumstances evin

5 The Latin phrase coram nobis means "before us," referring to the sovereign. Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The writ's name stems from the fact that at common-law, coram nobis was a writ of error taken from a judgment of the King's Bench. Id. In con

II. DISCUSSION The court's role "in a proceeding to enforce an administrative subpoena is a strictly limited one." FTC v. Texaco, Inc. , 555 F.2d 862, 871-72 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The court is to determine whether " 'the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and

Trooper Hassett then conducted the search of the car. First, he saw the bags on the seat in plain sight containing a flashlight that would attach to a pistol. Tr. 49:16-18. He secured the flashlight. Id. at 52:19-53:3. He became reasonably concerned that there might be a weapon in the vehicle. Id. He found the loaded Glock pistol under the passenger's seat. A further search of the vehicle after police towed it and it was i

Based on the Court's analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED : 1. Petitioner Sophia Wilansky's motion for the return of seized property, (Dkt. 10), is DENIED . 2. Respondents' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 29), is GRANTED . 3. Petitioner Sophia Wilansky's complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). This case only concerns 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), known as the "force" or "elements" clause. See Stuckey ,

*144MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN M. FACCIOLA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I. Background On November 26, 2013, this Court granted Robert Berman’s Motion to Unseal Search Warrant Ajfidavit(s) [# 21] and ordered that the docket in this then-thirteen year-old search warrant case be unsealed in full. See In re: Searc

The government's arguments on this point are not persuasive. Although the government is correct that the OCE was created to operate within the House, it is not the "House" itself. Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution makes clear that the House "shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." The OCE is indisputably not composed of "members elected by the people," and therefore it cannot be "the House"

C. The facts surrounding the appointment of the Special Counsel in this case are widely known, but bear repetition in some detail here. On March 20, 2017, then-Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Director James Comey disclosed that the FBI was in the process of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election and any potential links or coordination between the Russian government and President Trump's