Microjuris Puerto Rico
 
Favor entrar Usuario y/o Clave


 
Leyes
   LPRA-Índice Dinámico
   LPR-Catálogo de Leyes
   Reglas
   Reglamentos
Decisiones
   DPR-Tribunal Supremo
   TA-Tribunal de Apelaciones
Trámite Legislativo
   eLegislativo
   Informes Legislativos
Federal
   US Supreme Court
   Circuit Courts
   District Court (PR)
   Bankruptcy (PR)
   USC
   CFR
Doctrina
   Revistas
Compendia
   Laboral
   Contributivo
   Ambiental
Servicios
   AYUDA
   SherLAWck-Alerts
   Web Mail


 
Guardar Búsquedas
 MJPR_Apelativo
 

IntelliSearch


¿Su consulta es en inglés?No
  • Búsqueda por:

Filtrar por:

Colección  
  • Todas  
  • LPRA
  • LPR
  • DPR
  • Apelaciones
  • Reglamentos
  • Revistas
  • OSJ
  • eLegislativo
  • Supreme Court-Federal
  • Circuit Courts-Federal
  • 1st Circuit-Federal
  • District Court-Federal
  • Bankruptcy-Federal
  • USC-Federal
  • CFR-Federal
Inicio » Resultados
Cambiar Tamaño del Texto Crear PDF de esta página Enviar esta página por Email Imprimir esta página
 
United States v. Schrammeck
United States v. Schrammeck. NOT FOR PUBLICATIOND.C. No. 9:16-cr-00003-DLCMEMORANDUM*Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of MontanaDana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, PresidingBefore: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.Sean Patrick Schrammeck appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month-and-one-day sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Schrammeck'sPage 2 counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have considered Schrammeck's pro se supplemental brief, which the Clerk is instructed to
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|9th Cir.  |  2017USCA1016240981
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
United States v. Brooks
United States v. Brooks. UNPUBLISHEDAppeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00135-HEH-1; 3:15-cr-00135-HEH-2) Page 2 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.ARGUED: Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia; Caroline Swift Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Stephen David Schiller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|4th Cir.  |  2017USCA1462972787
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Bracey v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr.
Bracey v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr.. NOT PRECEDENTIALOn Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania(D.C. Civ. No. 11-cv-00217)District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon Page 2 Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)April 14, 2017Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit JudgesOPINION*PER CURIAMCorey Bracey appeals from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment to the defendants. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.Bracey, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against numerous Pennsylvania Department of Corrections officials and prison health
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|3rd Cir.  |  2017USCA1772353730
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Martinez-Herrera v. Sessions
Martinez-Herrera v. Sessions. NOT FOR PUBLICATIONAgency No. A072-990-842MEMORANDUM*On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration AppealsBefore: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.Maglori Martinez-Herrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision finding that Martinez-Herrera abandoned her application for asylum and related relief. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.Page 2 § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the decision to deem an application abandoned, Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|9th Cir.  |  2017USCA1537225614
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
United States v. Castillo
United States v. Castillo. NOT FOR PUBLICATIOND.C. No. 3:08-cr-00937-BENMEMORANDUM*Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaRoger T. Benitez, District Judge, PresidingBefore: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.Pedro M. Castillo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.Page 2 Castillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments and the sentencing factors, and by failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|9th Cir.  |  2017USCA769839975
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Loumena v. Barth
Loumena v. Barth. NOT FOR PUBLICATIOND.C. No. 5:14-cv-05423-LHKMEMORANDUM*Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaLucy H. Koh, District Judge, PresidingBefore: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.Max Loumena appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem and subsequent dismissal of his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss this appeal as moot.Page 2 Approximately one month after Loumena filed this appeal, he turned 18 years of age and was no longer required to secure the appointment of a guardian ad litem in order to pursue his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1) (the capacity of an
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|9th Cir.  |  2017USCA186983762
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Sanchez-Luna v. Sessions
Sanchez-Luna v. Sessions. NOT FOR PUBLICATIONAgency No. A092-371-605MEMORANDUM*On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration AppealsBefore: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.Alberto Sanchez-Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion thePage 2 denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez-Luna's motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. See
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|9th Cir.  |  2017USCA622962481
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Jahan v. Sessions
Jahan v. Sessions. SUMMARY ORDERRULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of April, two thousand seventeen.PRESENT: JOHN M.
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|2nd Cir.  |  2017USCA467700808
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Evans v. Plummer
Evans v. Plummer. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATIONFile Name: 17a0230n.06ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIOBEFORE: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, Circuit Judges.HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Montgomery County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") sergeants Wayne Banks and Thomas Feehan appeal the denial of qualified immunity and state-law immunity in this suit arising out of injuries sustained by Plaintiff Emily Evans while being processed into the Montgomery County Jail.1 As to Banks's qualified immunity appeal, we DISMISS IN PART and AFFIRM IN PART; we REVERSE the denial of qualified immunity to Feehan, AFFIRM the district court's denial of state-law immunity to both appellants, and REMAND for further
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|6th Cir.  |  2017USCA397937416
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Dale v. Bank of Am. Corp.
Dale v. Bank of Am. Corp.. NOT FOR PUBLICATIOND.C. No. 2:13-cv-01171-ROSMEMORANDUM*Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of ArizonaRoslyn O. Silver, District Judge, PresidingBefore: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.Stanley J. Dale appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to the modification of his mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of CivilPage 2 Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.The district court properly dismissed Dale's action because Dale
19-abr-2017 |  US Court of Appeals|9th Cir.  |  2017USCA789582591
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Resultados 1 al 10 de 4479643 (aprox.)Página: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>

Política de Privacidad |   Términos y Condiciones  |    @FaceBook |   @Twitter | Sitemap   |    Últimas entradas (RSS)   |    Blog Corporativo

INICIO

MI PERFIL

BÚSQUEDA POR:

QUÉ OFRECEMOS PRODUCTOS SERVICIOS AYUDA CONTÁCTANOS
 

» Prueba la nueva versión de Microjuris.com OK