Case law

United States v. Robert Blakeslee

423 F. App'x 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 15, 2011

For the NCMEC report to be admissible under the business records exception, it must be authenticated by “the custodian [of the record] or other qualified witness.” F.R.E. 803(6). … It is Blakeslee’s burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he has “clearly accept[ed] responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); see also United States v.

Fowlin v. Dir BCIS

221 F. App'x 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2007

That clearly was Congress’ prerogative. See Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 792; Schneiderman, 320 U.S. at 131; United States v. … Fowlin was, indeed, entitled to due process in the procedure employed to determine whether he qualified for naturalization under those provisions of the law, and, as we found above, he received it.

Kindler v. Horn

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 3, 2008

The warrant identified Bernstein as the informant, and Kindler subsquently learned that Bernstein had been granted immunity so he could testify against Kindler. … That charge clearly created a reasonable likelihood that the jurors may have believed that they could only consider the mitigating circumstances that they unanimously agreed upon.

Florida East Coast Railway Company v. City Of West Palm Beach

266 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 27, 2001

The factual findings supporting the district court's conclusion are not clearly erroneous. … Against this presumption of validity, we conclude that the application of the ordinances against Rinker, based on the facts found by the district court, does not qualify as "regulation of rail transportation" and does not

Bernardsville Board of Education v. J.H., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Son, J.H. E.H., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Son, J.H. J.H., Individually

42 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 20, 1994

The school district's size is no excuse for its conduct in this case. 81 The Bernardsville District was clearly on notice, albeit not through a formal due process request, that J.H.' … Because we agree with the district court that the Board of Education failed under either standard, we need not address the parties' contentions as to which standard applies. 12 Caselaw qualifies 20 U.S.C.

Andokho v. Attorney General

280 F. App'x 166 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 20, 2008

The legal precepts underlying Andokho’s claim are well established. … Nor has Andokho established a well-founded fear of future persecution.

Zheng v. Atty Gen USA

104 F. App'x 251 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 16, 2004

Although this episode illustrates public security officials’ religious intolerance and brutality, it does not clearly establish that they knew of Zheng’s Christian religious activities, nor does … Thus, Zheng’s testimony concerning his father’s injuries does not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution as required to qualify for asylum and withholding of deportation. See Zubeda v.

Vincent A. Piazza, III v.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 4, 2024

These Rules establish that a document “require[s] no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted.” Fed. R. Evid. 902. … establish that the [s]tate [c]ourt [j]udgments are exempted from Piazza’s Chapter 7 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).”

Dia Navigation Company, Ltd v. Pomeroy

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 1994

The district court found that the relief Dia seeks qualifies as money damages for purposes of this section, Dia, 831 F.Supp. at 378-80, and that as a result recovery is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … As such, Dia's claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. B.

United States v. James Rought

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2021

And what qualifies as an “initiation” on a covered topic following a limited invocation? … Again, we disagree, and the District Court’s determinations to the contrary were not clearly erroneous.

Dennis v. Luis

741 F.2d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 10, 1984

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 , 102 S.Ct. 752 , 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982), the Supreme Court set forth the minimum constitutional requirements necessary to establish standing. … Appellants also move this court to strike a portion of footnote 4 of appellees’ brief which asserts that: The Fifteenth Legislature is clearly divided into two factions 9 to 6.

Dunn v. United States

842 F.2d 1420 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 23, 1988

As we shall explain, see infra Part V, that finding was clearly erroneous. IV. EAJA A. Statutory Language 50 The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. … The party claiming prevailing party status bears the burden of proof. 51 The threshold inquiry for a district court when presented with an application for attorneys' fees is whether the claimant qualifies as a prevailing

In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation

401 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 2005

MDL 1203 Fee & Cost Account Pretrial Order No. 467 established the MDL 1203 Fee & Cost Account. … A final award would have to wait until the viability of the Settlement Agreement had been firmly established.

Broome v. United States Department of Labor

870 F.2d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 10, 1989

In particular, plaintiff William Boyer applied for a position for which he was qualified, but was given no preference. … Procedures will be established to provide for the transfer, demotion, or separation of employees whose performance continues to be inadequate after reasonable efforts have been made to correct it.

CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls America, Inc.

176 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 11, 1999

CoreStates’s claim clearly meets these three requirements. … Under Rule 12(c), a district court cannot grant judgment on the pleadings, and we may not affirm such a grant, “unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled

T. J. Stevenson & Co., Inc., a Corporation, and Counterclaimant, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, Etc., Adm Milling Co., Inc., Counterclaimant & Third Party Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. T. J. Stevenson & Co., Inc., Mv Nedon, Etc., as to Counterclaim, Republic of Bolivia, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, Third Party Counterclaimant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant

629 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 27, 1980

Attempts to bring Bolivia into the fray were at first frustrated by a claim of sovereign immunity, but eventually Bolivia filed an answer on September 25, 1975. … We do not find the Judge's conclusion clearly erroneous. 205 VI.

United States v. Larkin

629 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 10, 2010

Based on these facts, the District Court’s conclusion that Larkin took the photographs is not clearly erroneous. 11 her hands. … Ultimately, it is Dost factor six that tips the balance on the side of qualifying the photograph as exhibiting lascivious conduct.

United States v. Shedrick

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

We noted, however, that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically held that ineffective assistance of counsel qualifies as a miscarriage of justice sufficient to overcome a waiver-of- appeal provision. … This case falls well within well-established precedent: defense counsel’s conjectures to his client about sentencing are irrelevant where the written plea agreement and in-court guilty plea colloquy clearly establish the

United States v. Kulick

629 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 2010

United States, 369 F.3d 237, 248 (3d Cir. 2004), we established a general rule for determining whether §§ 1B1.3(a)(1) or (a)(2) applies to certain conduct. … A “court need not discuss every argument made by a litigant if an argument is clearly without merit. . . .

Leslie v. Attorney General

208 F. App'x 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 8, 2006

At the time of his father’s naturalization, they were “legally separated,” because they clearly had no binding relationship at that time. … As a threshold matter, Leslie does not challenge the qualifying convictions. Ordinarily, we would lack subject matter jurisdiction over this petition for review, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(B)(i).