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
 
Laureano-Pérez v. United States
Laureano-Pérez v. United States. [Related to Crim. No. 12-426-5 (ADC)]OPINION AND ORDERBy an Opinion and Order, dated March 2, 2017, the Court summarily dismissed, without subsequent objection, Grounds Two, Three, and Four of petitioner Juan M. Laureano-Pérez's timely motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). See ECF No. 4. The Court also ordered the Government to respond to Ground One of the motion, which stated that the Court had erred by failing to impose individual sentences on petitioner's two conspiracy convictions. Id. at 3-4, 10. Indeed, the Court had imposed a single sentence of life imprisonment on petitioner's drug-conspiracy and firearm-conspiracy convictions, even though the latter had a maximum legally-authorized sentence of only twenty years in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(o); ECF No. 4 at 1, 3-4. The
19-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC810415702
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. Andujar-Maldonado
United States v. Andujar-Maldonado. ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: RULE 11 PROCEEDINGSThe Court has evaluated the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation of the Rule 11 proceedings regarding defendant contained in the Report and Recommendation, Docket No. 87.The principal consideration is whether that plea was knowingly, voluntary and intelligently made within the terms of Rule 11, United States v. Isom, 85 F.3d 831, 835-837 (1st Cir.1996). In order to ascertain whether defendant made a knowingly, voluntary and intelligent plea, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has identified three core concerns: absence of coercion, defendant's understanding of the charges and the defendant's knowledge of the consequences of the guilty plea. United States
19-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC318860664
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Cruz-Danzot v. United States
Cruz-Danzot v. United States. OPINION AND ORDERBy a Judgment, dated July 20, 2012, petitioner Miguel Ángel Cruz-Danzot was convicted before this Court, by guilty plea, of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base within a Protected Location, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 860, and was sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison, followed by eight years of supervised release. The Judgment became final on August 6, 2012, fourteen days after its entry, when petitioner failed to timely appeal it pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Clarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2013) (per Posner, J.) (holding that petitioner's "conviction did not become final until she was sentenced, . . . and the sentence did not become final until the deadline for filing a notice of appeal expired . . . .") (citing Allen v.
18-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC1272771135
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. [1] Jorge Balbuena-Peguero
United States v. [1] Jorge Balbuena-Peguero. OPINION AND ORDERI. Introduction and procedural historyBy an Indictment, dated October 19, 2016, a federal grand jury charged defendants Jorge Balbuena-Peguero ("Balbuena") and Luciano García-Mendoza ("García") with one count each of conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(1)(B), 963; conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute on a vessel without nationality, 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(b); and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on a vessel without nationality, 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. ECF No. 10 (Indictment). These charges stem from the approximately fifty-six kilograms of cocaine that defendants allegedly jettisoned from their boat when federal agents moved to intercept them in
18-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC625090014
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Shepard-Fraser v. United States
Shepard-Fraser v. United States. OPINION AND ORDERPending before the Court is Petitioner Denise Shepard-Fraser's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence imposed in criminal case 3:09-cr-0113. See Docket No. 1, see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons provided below, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Docket No. 1).I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDOn May 24, 2011, following a trial, a jury convicted Petitioner, Denise Shepard-Fraser, hereinafter ("Petitioner") on two counts; conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute five (5) kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
18-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC2099435591
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. Vargas-Montanez
United States v. Vargas-Montanez. ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: RULE 11 PROCEEDINGSThe Court has evaluated the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation of the Rule 11 proceedings regarding defendant contained in the Report and Recommendation, Docket No. 36.The principal consideration is whether that plea was knowingly, voluntary and intelligently made within the terms of Rule 11, United States v. Isom, 85 F.3d 831, 835-837 (1st Cir.1996). In order to ascertain whether defendant made a knowingly, voluntary and intelligent plea, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has identified three core concerns: absence of coercion, defendant's understanding of the charges and the defendant's knowledge of the consequences of the guilty plea. United States
18-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC1969535897
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Mercado-Padilla v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Mercado-Padilla v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.. OPINION AND ORDERMildred Mercado-Padilla ("Mercado") seeks review of the Commissioner's finding that she is not disabled and thus not entitled to disability benefits under the Social Security Act ("Act"). 42 U.S.C. § 423. Mercado contends the Commissioner's decision should be reversed for lack of substantial evidence, and that her case should be remanded with instructions to award disability benefits or, alternatively, for further proceedings. Docket Nos. 1, 15. The Commissioner opposed. Docket No. 17. This case is before me on consent of the parties. Docket No. 6. For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.STANDARD OF REVIEWAfter reviewing the pleadings and record
17-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC1143017596
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Lazaro v. Abbott Med. Optics, Inc.
Lazaro v. Abbott Med. Optics, Inc.. OPINION AND ORDERBefore the court is defendant Abbott Medical Optics' ("defendant") motion for partial dismissal, and plaintiffs Alberto M. Lazaro ("Lazaro") and Vanessa Aymerich's ("Aymerich")(collectively, "plaintiffs") opposition thereto.1 See Docket Nos. 5 and 9. For the reasons specified below, defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.I. BACKGROUNDOn February 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a civil suit, alleging that Lazaro sustained serious injuries directly caused by a contact lens disinfectant solution, the Complete MoisturePlus Multi Purpose Solution ("CMMPS"). The solution is manufactured, marketed, and distributed by defendant. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs allege
17-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC1063763431
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. Bravo-Fernández
United States v. Bravo-Fernández. OPINION AND ORDERBESOSA, District Judge.Before the Court is defendant Juan Bravo-Fernandez's ("defendant Bravo")'s and defendant Hector Martinez-Maldonado's ("defendant Martinez")'s joint motion to strike surplusage, Docket No. 740, and defendants' joint motion in limine to exclude testimony, evidence and related argument regarding alleged payments to Jorge de Castro-Font, Docket No. 739. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants' joint motion to strike surplusage. (Docket No. 740.) Additionally, the Court DENIES without prejudice defendant's motion in limine to exclude testimony, evidence, and related argument regarding alleged payments to De Castro-Font. (Docket No. 739.) Page 2I. BACKGROUNDOn
13-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC1442558220
Ver Resumen de Documento | Abrir Documento | Descargar Documento a mi Computador | Guardar Documento en Mi Perfil | Enviar Documento por Correo Electrónico | Buscar Documentos Similares  
 
Pujol-Alvarez v. Grupo Hima-San Pablo, Inc.
Pujol-Alvarez v. Grupo Hima-San Pablo, Inc.. OPINION AND ORDERBESOSA, District Judge.Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc., HIMA San Pablo-Bayamon, and HIMA San Pablo Captive Insurance LTD. (collectively, "HIMA"). (Docket Nos. 54 and 55.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS defendants' motions.BACKGROUNDPlaintiffs, who are surviving family members of Ernesto Pujol-Rosquete ("Mr. Pujol"), filed suit against HIMA, Dr. Enrique Robles-Garcia ("Dr. Robles"),1 and Dr. Myriam Perez-PabonPage 2 ("Dr. Perez"),2 pursuant to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA"), 42 U.S.C. §
13-abr-2017 |  US District Court|D.P.R.  |  2017USDC547037913
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 66179 (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