Case law

United States v. Nicholas Lucidonio

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 2025

the IRS’s collection of revenue. 10  With a proper understanding in mind of “conduct was intended to encourage,” we summarily reject Lucidonio’s argument that the District Court clearly … Sent’g Comm’n 2023) (attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy not covered by a specific offense Guideline). 12 failure to report income of its RIY member employees established the overt act . .

Cooke v. Attorney General of United States

181 F. App'x 311 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 31, 2006

. § 1182(h), as a returning lawful permanent resident with more than seven years’ residency, no aggravated felony convictions, and a qualifying relative. 3 … She also argues that the record establishes that she met the statutory requirements for eligibility of section 212(h) relief.

United States v. Hammer

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 31, 2000

The absence of such a requirement would seem to establish clearly that a defendant is not required to appeal a sentence of death. … Clearly, they do nothing more than specify the scope of review when an appeal is filed.

Lucille Olivieri v. Bucks County

502 F. App'x 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 2012

The District Court found that Olivieri failed to establish the causation element of her prima facie case and that, even if she had established causation, she cannot rebut the County’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons … At all times relevant to his case, the County maintained an official policy that clearly prohibited sexual harassment. The County also provided updates and training to employees with regard to revisions in the policy.

United States v. Nakia Adams

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 2022

Accordingly, Adams cannot establish a violation of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act, and on this independent and alternate basis, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of that claim. … In light of Greer, Adams cannot establish plain error.

Gannon v. United States

292 F. App'x 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 2008

The District Court found that all three qualified as experts. Dr. Garcea testified that SV40 has not been shown to cause medulloblastoma. Dr. … Based upon the foregoing analysis and its thorough consideration of the record evidence we cannot say that the Court clearly erred in its findings of fact or that it erred in

Ohannessian v. Atty Gen USA

105 F. App'x 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 6, 2004

To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413 (1987). … We see no other evidence in the record which would tend to establish Kevork’s claim.

Merge v. Sharott

341 F.2d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 2, 1965

Meat slaughterers who qualified under the subsidy regulations thus were entitled to the subsidy as a matter of right and not of grace.' Riverview Packing Co. v. … to require the carrying out of any or all such covenants and agreements of the Authority, and the fulfillment of all duties imposed upon the Authority by this act;' 41 The remedies available under the quoted section are clearly

Sandra Moteles v. University of Pennsylvania and Local 506, United Plant Guard Workers of America

730 F.2d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 25, 1984

This evidence, clearly relevant to whether the University could show a BFOQ, should have been admitted and considered. 43 The merits of the BFOQ defense must be resolved not only to determine whether the University violated … Imagine further that one man and one woman apply for the recreation counselor job and that the female applicant is qualified while the male applicant is not. 56 Of course, Title VII would not authorize that employer to reject

Cekaj v. Atty Gen USA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2009

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding 2 that (i) while Cekaj qualified for political asylum based on his testimony regarding … The legal precepts underlying Cejak’s claim are well established.

Major League Umpires Ass'n v. American League of Professional Baseball Clubs

357 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 17, 2004

On July 23, it filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking to establish the resigning umpires’ rights to termination pay and benefits. … Manifest disregard for the OBA is established when the arbitrator's award is "`totally unsupported by principles of contract construction.'" Exxon Shipping Co. v.

Henry Abrego-Centeno v. Attorney General United States

552 F. App'x 130 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 17, 2014

With regard to that determination, the Board reasoned that the IJ did not clearly err because there were noteworthy inconsistencies in Abrego’s application and testimony with respect to the number of times he was beaten … An applicant cannot rely solely on the persecution of a family member to qualify for relief, see Cham v.

United States v. Joaquin Foy

803 F.3d 128 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 5, 2015

The District Court in the Western District of Missouri ruled on the motion in an opinion of May 9, 2007, stating: A review of the records and files in this case clearly establishes that in its order … Resolving these claims is clearly “in the interest of justice.” II.

John H. Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

954 F.2d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

There the defendants were convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to testify before the grand jury after having been granted immunity. … Such a limitation would be inconsistent with the well-established principle that the contempt power is inherent in the courts.

Kporlor v. Attorney General of the United States

529 F. App'x 173 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 2013

We review such claims de novo subject to established principles of deference. See id. … The BIA did apply that approach, however, and his conviction clearly qualifies. Kporlor pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of N.J. Stat.

United States v. Rosier

218 F. App'x 182 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

Rosier clearly indicates to me that he understood exactly what he was doing and understood the vulnerability of Mr. Raynor in particular.” … This determination is not clearly erroneous. In order to qualify for a vulnerable victim enhancement, a defendant need only have impacted one vulnerable victim. Id. at 190.

United States v. Frank Nucera, Jr.

67 F.4th 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 5, 2023

Nucera also urges that the statement qualified for the exception to hearsay found in Federal Rule of Evidence 807. … The cases tell us “establish” means “constitute” or “equate to.”

United States v. Justin Cabot

488 F. App'x 611 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 2012

In the proceedings below, Cabot did not dispute that he qualified as a career offender, nor does he on appeal. … In order to prevail under plain error review, the defendant “must establish an error that is plain, which affected his substantial rights, and which, if not rectified, would seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public

In Re Gutpelet

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 3, 1998

Therefore, the Debtor contends, the funds were immune from process under Pennsylvania law and are exempt under S 522(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. … was not clearly erroneous.

Serbanic v. Harleysville Life Insurance

325 F. App'x 86 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 2009

It is well established that, in a § 1132(a)(1)(B) benefit claim under ERISA, the reviewing court must apply an arbitrary and capricious standard of review when the plan administrator is under a conflict of interest because … Under ERISA, an administrator’s claim decision “will be overturned only if it is clearly not supported by the evidence in the record . . . .” Smathers v.