The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
MoreNorman Foster; Blackford Securities Corp.; DiRienzo v. Philip Servs. Cf. Wiwa, 226 F.3d at 103 (ruling that the district court applied an incorrect standard of law in its forum non conveniens analysis by fail[ing] to credit the fact that two of the [four] plaintiffs were United States citizens).
276 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. Both Supreme Court and First Circuit precedent clearly requires something more compelling than the existence of drugs and a weapon to satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard before the police can dispense with the obligation to knock and announce when executing a warrant.
PUERTO RICO PORTS AUTHORITY;CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, INC.;Defendants.On page 2, line 1, change 1999 to 1995.
, Heard March 4, 2002. were on brief, for appellant. Pan American claimed that the fire resulted from a chain of events starting when the vessel's starboard propeller struck uncharted submerged pilings in the dockage area, for which both PRPA and Procesadora (jointly appellees) were responsible.
Second, the appellees argue that the local rules give the district court clerk the authority to reject a complaint submitted for filing unless it is accompanied by the full filing fee or a proper IFP application. See Casanova v. Dubois, 289 F.3d 142, 144 (1st Cir.2002).) (citing cases).
Appellees challenge the jurisdiction of this court to consider the appeal of all of the appellants except that of Raul Casanova for their failure to file proper notices of appeal on a timely basis. Two days later, Casanova wrote to the court, stating that the filing fee would be resent.
279 F.3d 105, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Marcos MART NEZ-MEDINA, Defendant, Appellant.United States of America, Appellee, v.Manuel P rez-Col n, Defendant, Appellant.United States of America, Appellee, v.Angela Ayala-Mart nez, Defendant, Appellant. 1038, 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985).
292 F.3d 90, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.William SMITH, Defendant, Appellant. United States v. Currier, 836 F.2d 11, 18-19 (1st Cir.1987) (finding no abuse in court's Rule 403 calculus where district court alleviated impact of unfair prejudice by means of cogent limiting instructions).
305 F.3d 1257, Daniel HEIMMERMANN, individually and on behalf of themselves and class described, Emily Heimmermann, individually and on behalf of themselves and a class described, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.FIRST UNION MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1997).
1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1999). AEDPA changed matters. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir.2000). This case is unusual because Nowaczyk was in the process of adjudicating his double jeopardy claim in the state courts, yet made no effort to include that claim in his 2254 petition.
308 F.3d 124, Frederic W. BERTHOFF, Petitioner, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES, Respondent, Appellee. We acknowledge that the district court raises serious and troubling issues regarding sentencing disparity that merit careful consideration in an appropriate case; 2901, 82 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1984).
304 F.3d 55, Eugene E. WIGGINTON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Reginald A. CENTRACCHIO, Et Al. and our research confirms that no court (whether a Rhode Island court, a federal court, or a court of another state) has, in a reported opinion, construed staff corps and departments as utilized in R.I.
Nowaczyk's case. See Tillema, 253 F.3d at 503 (holding, that the district court committed prejudicial legal error when it, dismissed Tillema's first federal habeas petition without affording, him the opportunity to abandon his sole unexhausted claim as an, alternative to suffering dismissal);
United States Court of Appeals, For the First Circuit No. 98-1921, 99-1379 STEVEN J. NOWACZYK Petitioner, Appellant v. WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON Respondent, Appellee. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued August 14, 2002 should be, amended as follows: On page 10
281 F.3d 320, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Rafael COLLAZO-APONTE, Defendant, Appellant., 1, On June 27, 2000, this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of appellant Rafael Collazo-Aponte (Collazo-Aponte) for a drug-related gun offense and for his participation in a drug conspiracy.
Gladys Rivera; Calder n's housing unit consisted of a corridor of two-prisoner cells. They argue that plaintiffs should have alleged facts specific to Calder n that defendants knew, or from which they could have inferred, that Calder n could be subject to sexual assaults by other inmates.
279 F.3d 5, UNITED STATES, Appellee, v.Michael Robert DUBOVSKY, Defendant, Appellant., I., 2, In 1996, Dubovsky admitted in Massachusetts state court to sufficient facts to support a conviction on a charge of possession of marijuana. United States v. McDonald, 991 F.2d 866 (D.C.Cir.1993)).
311 F.3d 456, Antonio Vicente DIAS, Petitioner, v.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. For this reason, the Court held that alien criminal defendants who pled guilty prior to AEDPA are eligible to apply for discretionary relief under former 212(c) of the INA.
, 13, Whether prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 1382 may include trespassers in the danger zone around Camp Garcia is a question of law, and [w]e review the district court's construction of a federal statute de novo, United States v. Maxwell, 254 F.3d 21, 24 (1st Cir.2001)., (b) Restricted area.
Defendants, Appellees.Page 19, last line: Replace Casio with Cascio.
