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:
MoreThus, the district court's admission, of Pevarnik's statement was, at most, harmless error. United States v. Ortiz-Santiago, 211 F.3d 146, 149 (1st, Cir. Only Tom knew both Quezada and Carter, and it was Tom, who reached out for Carter to provide crack cocaine to Quezada.
330 F.3d 83, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Luis TOM, a/k/a Cuba, Defendant, Appellant. 883, 99 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1988)). Carter made the statement immediately after handing Quezada one ounce of crack cocaine in an attempt to alleviate Quezada's concerns about the quality of the crack.
333 F.3d 299, David DUDLEY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v.HANNAFORD BROS. This difficult case places those policies in tension with each other. In mounting this argument, Hannaford does not challenge the district court's ruling that Dudley had standing to bring his Title III suit. Amir v. St. Louis Univ.
Defendant, Appellant.On page twenty-one, line nineteen, delete defense.
In the Rankins' view at the time, the damage to the items that were delivered amounted to about $24, 000 of which Allstate's share was half.1 On February 12, 2001, Allstate agreed to pay $6, 000 to satisfy what it claimed was its share of the losses stemming from the damaged goods.
United States Court of Appeals, For the First Circuit No. 02-2701 CHRISTOPHER MUNOZ Petitioner, Appellant v. UNITED STATES Respondent, Appellee. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 29, 2003 is, corrected as follows: On page 3, line 14, change F.2d to F.3d
337 F.3d 103, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.John B. STEWART, Defendant, Appellant., United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. The government's case has needlessly suffered from the state agents' inappropriate decisions to sanitize the information supplied to support the search warrant.
324 F.3d 27, UNITED STATES, Appellee, v.Alberto LUJAN, A/K/A Robert Lujan, Defendant, Appellant., STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge., 7, At the sentencing hearing, Lujan sought a section 5H1.4 departure, which, despite the plea agreement, the government opposed. 5H1.4. 2035, 135 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1996).
A motion to reduce, a sentence may be made, or the court may, reduce a sentence without motion, within 120, days after the sentence is imposed or, probation is revoked, or within 120 days after, receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon, affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the, appeal.
Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.in the district court, pursuant to Fed.i.e., Rule 41(e), effective at the time of Reyes-Hernandez's June, 2002 filing.remanded for entry of an order granting the motion.
330 F.3d 36, In re: FBI DISTRIBUTION CORP., f/k/a Filene's Basement, Inc.; Accordingly, the court in Mammoth Mart held that an employee under such a program was entitled to administrative priority for the severance earned for services rendered postpetition, but not for severance earned prepetition.
DONALD W. WYATT DETENTION FACILITY INCORPORATION, ET AL.Defendants, Appellees.On page 7 line 4 change injustice to justice.
Terry Newton; After admittance, states must review an individual's needs for nursing facility care and specialized services whenever there is a significant change in the individual's condition. 2268, 153 L. Ed. 2d 309 (2002) (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 294, 101 S. Ct.
Defendant, Appellant.Carlos Tobar on brief pro se.Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant, United States Attorney on brief for appellee. Assuming that the ten-day appeal period in Fed.in light of this amendment.United States, 995 F.2d 323, 324 & n. 1 (1st Cir.
, D. Sentencing Errors, 1. the only complaint is that the wiretap tapes were in Spanish, 4, The trial court retains discretion as to what documentary evidence the jury is permitted to have during deliberationsSee United States v. McCarthy, 961 F.2d 972, 978 (1st Cir.1992) (Whether ...
326 F.3d 36, UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v.ONE-SIXTH SHARE OF JAMES J. BULGER IN ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE PROCEEDS OF MASS MILLIONS LOTTERY TICKET NO. M246233, Registered in the Name of Michael Linskey, Defendant.Olga Davis; Marion Hussey; John Bulger filed a timely claim in that litigation.
Unlike an action involving a plaintiff class (in which the defendant's potential liability increases dramatically upon the granting of class certification), the named defendant's individual liability generally remains constant in a class action involving a defendant class., B. Stare Decisis.
353 F.3d 79, Cesar TORRES-TORRES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.Commonwealth of PUERTO RICO, et al. Laws Ann. But as the Court stated in Timmons: [t]hat a particular individual may not appear on the ballot as a particular party's candidate does not severely burden that party's associational rights.
, 18, Maxwell contends that overall, the district court end [ran] the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act by sitting on all necessary papers concerning the severance motion for more than seven months and then stating that the court would have scheduled a hearing on the motion.
354 F.3d 27, Roy HILLSTROM, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.BEST WESTERN TLC HOTEL, Defendant, Appellee. LaCava later testified that Phipps's promotion was part of a larger strategy to consolidate management at the Best Western and have fewer people directly reporting to him. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).
