Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Michael J. Wold appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially

645 F.2d 76 U. S.v.Wold 80-1895 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Seventh Circuit 1/19/81 1 N.D.Ill. AFFIRMED

MAGILL, Circuit Judge. Daniel and Rhonda Wold appeal from a judgment in district court 1 on charges relating to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine. The Wolds claim the *634 trial court erred by not suppressing evidence from-

App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

SUMMARY ORDER In April 2015, defendant-appellant Sean Robinson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. On August 14, 2015, the district court entered judgment sentencing him to 240 months’ imprisonment and ordering him to pay $1,106,000 in restitution to specified robbery victims who suffered losses as a result of the charged conspiracy. Robinson challenges the restitution order on the

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After the FBI arrested Paul Monea for money laundering, he told his attorney that the undercover agent coerced him into committing the crime. Those claims turned into allegations that the government tampered with evidence. And eventually-after the jury convicted him-Monea found a witness claiming that the undercover FBI agent lied on the stand. So he asks the

KELLY, Circuit Judge. Bryan Reichel appeals from his convictions for wire fraud, filing for bankruptcy for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud, and making false statements in relation to bankruptcy proceedings. Upon careful consideration of the issues presented, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge ' Currently before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [56]' of the Court’s Order and Memorandum Opinion [54, 55] granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [46]. Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motion, defendant’s response [59], plainti

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge Currently before the Court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [46], Upon consideration of the motion, plaintiffs’ opposition, defendant’s reply, the entire record herein, and the applicable law, the Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. On August 30, 2013, ten-month-old A.W.1 , suffered serious injuries resulting in seizure and was ultimately airlifted from his local hospital on the Red Lake Indian Reservation to a larger hospital in Fargo, North Dakota. A.W. was alone with his father, Defendant James Wh

KELLY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Upon review of a judgment of acquittal, a jury’s verdict may be reversed only if “no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Serrano-Lopez, 366 F.3d 628, 634 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Frank, 354 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir.2004)). As the court states, in conducting this review we view all ev

683 F.Supp.2d 991 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles William PRENTICE, Jr., Defendant. Criminal No. 09-343(1) (DWF/RLE). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. February 4, 2010. *994 Clifford B. Wardlaw, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, for Plaintiff. Aaron J. Morr

557 F.3d 879 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mohamad ELZAHABI, Appellant. No. 08-1755. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: November 11, 2008. Filed: March 5, 2009. *881 Paul C. Engh, argued, Minneapolis, MN, Peter B. Wold, III and Aaron Morrison, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief,

Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

POOLER, Circuit Judge: I concur in the opinion and the judgment, but write separately to suggest that it is time for Congress to revisit the issue of deferred and nonprosecution agreements (collectively, “DPAs”). DPAs exist because Section 3161(h)(2) of the Speedy Trial Act excludes “[a]ny period of delay during which prosecution is deferred by the attorney for the Government pursuant to written agreemen

517 F.Supp.2d 1121 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Mohamed Kamal ELZAHABI, Defendant. Criminal No. 04-282 (JRT). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. October 23, 2007. *1122 W. Anders Folk, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, John W. Van Lonkhuyzen, U.S. D