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:
MoreSTATE OF LOUISIANA, v., ANTHONY WAYNE BONNER, No. 2007 KA 1469. Determining the defendant's understanding of the waiver of counsel in a guilty plea to an uncomplicated misdemeanor requires less judicial inquiry than determining his understanding of his waiver of counsel for a felony trial.
, After the quitclaim deed of 2002 was signed, Ms. Simon, as administrator for the Succession, filed a Petition for Injunction to stop Greenland from using what was deemed a private, family driveway, in order to access the property. This was filed January 13, 2003. which apply in this case.
, On all of the evidence, a jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Brandao knew that Monteiro, Lopes, and Rodrigues belonged to the Stonehurst group, and that their group regularly engaged in shootings of rival gang members. United States v. Allen, 469 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.2006).
___ F.3d at ___ [slip op. at 9]. The appellant's argument in this case is, for all practical purposes, congruent with Caraballo's argument: that he was originally sentenced based on a sentencing range that was lowered by the retroactive crack cocaine amendment to the drug quantity table.
United States Court of Appeals, For the First Circuit No. 06-1558 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, Appellee v. MANUEL A. VEGA-SANTIAGO Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA The opinion issued on February 21, 2008, is amended as, follows: On page 6, line 1 of footnote 3, replace the citation
HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.Defendants, Petitioners.Page 2, Footnote 1, Line 5, to Page 3, Footnote 1 cont'd, Line, 1, sections 158(b) and (c) should read subsection 158(c).Page 4, Line 7, add district courts, before and bankruptcy.
, and Walter Oney on, response to order to show cause and petition for leave to appeal.court, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A).1, The defendants ask that the bankruptcy court's certification, be deemed the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal.and in the applicable rules.
MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY;Defendants, Appellees.Schlueter.
Scott A. Lathrop with whom Scott A. Lathrop & Associates was, on brief for appellant.Boston Carmen's Union, Local 589 (Local 589).Casamento then filed the present law suit.gender discrimination.previously posted position;MBTA and union did.member's claim because of the member's gender.
The respondent argues that because Valenzuela-Solari has conceded removability for overstaying, our review should proceed as if he bore the burden of proof on the false citizenship issue at his hearing. § 1229a(c)(2). See Singh, 413 F.3d at 159 n. 2 (rejecting a nearly identical claim).
GRAY CONSTRUCTION, INC.;prejudgment interest.Inc. v. Hutson, 229 F.3d 321, 330 (1st Cir.his initial award and reducing Gray's award by $66, 613.89. Courier-Citizen Co., 702 F.2d at 279;purview of this court to question such an assertion.that he did not exceed his authority under Rule 47.
551 F.3d 86 (2008), Jose AMILCAR-ORELLANA;, Amilcar-Orellana argues that the police in El Salvador are wholly incapable of protecting men like [Amilcar-Orellana] from retribution by gang members and also willfully turn a blind eye to, and at times participate in, gang-related criminal acts.
See USSG § 2D1.1. United States v. Jordan, 162 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1998); Had the new guideline provision for crack cocaine offenses (Amendment 706) been in effect when this defendant was sentenced, that provision would not have had any effect on the sentencing range actually used.
In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we hold that the district court read the standing order too inflexibly and acted outside the realm of its discretion in dismissing the action and imposing a monetary sanction without first affording the plaintiff notice and a brief opportunity to cure.
Suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants, in violation of plaintiffs' equal protection rights, intentionally obstructed the development by taking certain actions, actions which a state court had found to be in violation of state law and in bad faith., So ordered.
, Santiago-Lugo argues (as he did in the district court) that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until August 12, 2005, the date on which the district court granted the government's Rule 36 motion to amend the judgment to include the forfeiture order. Sims, 376 F.3d at 708.
On August 18, 2005, LRNA offered a twelve-month extension of the 2004 LOI deadlines subject to [Wagner] signing amended agreements., Chapter 93B of the Massachusetts General Laws regulates business practices among motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, and dealers in Massachusetts.
In the first place, the commentary to section 3E1.1 belies Jordan's suggestion that district courts are barred from considering post-indictment criminal conduct absent a significant connection to the offense of conviction. United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2000).
He was sentenced to the applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Ganun appeals from that ruling on the ground that it was prematurely entered before he had the opportunity to file the motion and memorandum in support, and that the district court erred in denying the reduction.
The court then explained that to convict, the jury must find a sufficient nexus between the guns and the criminal activity, see United States v. Robinson, 473 F.3d 387, 399 (1st Cir.2007), and listed the previously discussed factors that might assist the jury. drug trafficking crime ...
