Cases

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 04-4260 CURTIS DELMONT WOOLFOLK, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,

568 F.2d 780 U. S.v.Woolfolk No. 77-1558 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 1/10/78 1 C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED

568 F.2d 774 U. S.v.Woolfolk No. 77-1690 United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 1/27/78 1 D.W.Va. AFFIRMED

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment and concurring in part: I concur in the judgment entered by the majority, which remands for further consideration of Curtis Woolfolk’s Sixth Amendment and Speedy Trial Act claims. I also concur fully in the reasoning in part II.B of the majority opinion, which deals with Woolfolk’s claim that his speedy trial rights were denied under the Sixth Amendment. I

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. In determining whether to grant a new trial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the district court must determine: (1) whether the evidence came to light after trial; (2) whether the evidence could not have been discovered sooner with due diligence; (3) whether the evidence is material and not merely impeaching or cumulative; and (4) whether the evidence w

OPINION OF THE COURT SMITH, Circuit Judge. Thomas J. Woolfolk, Jr. appeals from an order of the District Court affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s grant of disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act for only a closed period of time. See 42 U.S.C. § 423. The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. O

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR TONY WOOLFOLK, et al., ) No. ED111491 ) Appellants, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County vs. ) No. 18SL-CC03677

Memorandum Opinion. The issue before this Court concerns the matter of age calculation for the purposes of Miller v Alabama, 567 US_; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), in which the United States Supreme Court held that “mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” Th

BOONSTRA, P.J. Defendant appeals by right his jury trial convictions of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316, *452and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony firearm), MCL 750.227b. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, consecutive to two years in prison for the felony-firearm conviction. We a

*414Opinion of the Court by Justice VENTERS. Appellant, Prince Wilbert Woolfolk, appeals as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict by the Daviess Circuit Court convicting him of first-degree rape. Pursuant to the jury’s recommendation, he was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. Appel

976 So.2d 216 (2008) Earl WOOLFOLK and Barbara Woolfolk v. TRISM, INC., Larry Finley, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Association. Earl Woolfolk and Barbara Woolfolk v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh and S. Coleman. Nos. 2007-CA-0749, 2007-CA-0750. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. January 16, 2008.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 27, 2005 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 03-2448 CHRISTOPHER HOLLY, Appeal from the United St

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 03-2448 CHRISTOPHER HOLLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. WOOLFOLK, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District

3 S.W.3d 823 (1999) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Carl A. WOOLFOLK, Appellant. No. WD 55803. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. August 17, 1999. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied October 5, 1999. Application for Transfer Denied November 23, 1999. *826 Earl F. Seitz, Columb