Case law

Oleksandr Oliynyk v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

He also alleged that the Government had failed to establish that he had actually been convicted of the theft-by-deception offense and raised numerous procedural objections. … However, the BIA’s key conclusions—that the IJ “did not clearly err in assessing country conditions or in forecasting the likelihood that the respondent would be tortured upon return to Ukraine,” BIA Op. at 3—are factual

Mourad Madrane v. Attorney General United States

648 F. App'x 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 4, 2016

The IJ applied the modified categorical approach, noted that the indictment did not allege losses of over $10,000, and found that the $10,000 loss requirement for a fraud offense to qualify as an aggravated felony was … The record clearly demonstrates that the losses incurred were significantly more than $10,000, and Madrane has not shown otherwise.

United States v. Salvatore A. Williams, A/K/A "Sonny." United States of America v. Salvatore C. Williams, A/K/A "Sal." United States of America v. Adolph Williams, A/K/A "Junior."

124 F.3d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1997

However, the rights asserted by the defendants here do not qualify for strict scrutiny. 37 As noted, the defendants claim that 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5514 affects their "right to hold specific private employment." … It clearly does not. "It is a general rule that federal district courts will decide evidence questions in federal criminal cases on the basis of federal, rather than state, law." United States v.

Intervest, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P. Sg Cowen Securities Liberty Brokerage Investment Liberty Brokerage, Inc. Liberty Brokerage Securities, Inc. Deutsche Bank Securities Cantor Fitzgerald Securities Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. Merrill Lynch & Co. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. Intervest Financial Services, Inc. v. Bear Stearns, Co. Inc. Cantor Fitzgerald Securties S.G. Cowen Securities Corp. Deutsche Bank Securities Corp. Liberty Brokerage, Inc. Liberty Brokerage Securities, Inc. Liberty Brokerage Investment, Corp. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. Salomon, Smith, Barney, Inc. Bloomberg, L.P. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. Cantor Fitzgerald Partners Intervest Financial Services, Inc.

340 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2003

InterVest submits that the evidence it presented in this case qualifies for the direct evidence exception to the Monsanto/Matsushita summary judgment standard and consequently faults the District Court's application of these … While these passages, viewed out of context, give the impression that the Court was improperly balancing the evidence, a job left to the fact-finder, what the Court clearly did was to conclude that the evidence InterVest

United States v. David Shulick

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Under this version of the statute, Shulick would have a better argument that the condition qualifies all words before it, as a unitary whole. … Declining to calculate the offsets as Hamilton proposed was not clearly erroneous. Shulick simply did not carry his burden to show that additional money was spent for the benefit of Southwest.

Joseph Germinaro v. Fidelity National Title Insura

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2018

property held by the qualified intermediary[.]” … Our case law clearly establishes that predicate acts spanning less than twelve months fail as a matter of law to establish closed-ended continuity. See, e.g., Tabas v.

Meiliana v. Atty Gen USA

242 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 24, 2007

Name calling, solicitations for money by native Indonesians, and higher fees to obtain an identification card clearly do not constitute the extreme behavior rising to the level of persecution. … AG of the United States, 400 F.3d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that “unfulfilled threats, even death threats, do not qualify as past persecution unless highly imminent”).

Avila v. Dominquez

294 F. App'x 748 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 3, 2008

An order qualifies as a “separate document” when it meets three criteria: (1) it is self-contained and separate from any memorandum or opinion; (2) it notes the relief granted; and (3) it omits the District Court’s reasons … This document does not purport to be an amended complaint and was not filed within 30 days of the District Court’s August 28, 2007 order. 3 presented as an order3 and it clearly

Hameen v. Delaware

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 2000

The"unreasonable application" inquiry requires the habeas court to"ask whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable." Id . at 4276. … AEDPA whether the Delaware Supreme Court's decisions in Cohen and Ferguson were contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Barbara J. Bundens, (Widow of Howard E. Bundens), (No. 94-3163) v. J.E. Brenneman Company Travelers Insurance Company and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, J.E. Brenneman Company and Travelers Insurance Company, (No. 94-3175) v. Barbara J. Bundens (Widow of Howard E. Bundens) and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Benefits Review Board

46 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1995

executed among all of the defendants in the district court litigation dismissed with prejudice all of the Bundens' claims. 7 It also fixed the respective amount that each defendant would contribute to the $1,000,000 settlement established … Thus, the Court held in order to qualify for coverage under the Jones Act, the employee must: (1) have an "employment-related connection to a vessel in navigation"; and (2) " 'contribut[e] to the function of the vessel or

Robinshon Nunez-Liriano v. Attorney General United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 7, 2019

In order to be eligible for discretionary cancellation of removal, the alien must—among other requirements—establish that “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying United States … Instead, it may review the IJ’s factual findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. 8 C.F.R § 1003.1(d)(3)(i).

Michael C. Ex Rel. Stephen C. v. Radnor Township School District

202 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

Because Pennsylvania never established an IEP for Michael, it is not certain that Radnor's interim educational plan for Michael was inappropriate. … We do not address whether the mediation procedures codified at section 1415(e) by the 1997 IDEA amendments qualify as "proceedings conducted pursuant to" section 1415 under the pendency requirement.

United States v. Wilder

204 F. App'x 146 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 25, 2006

He claimed that he would not have entered the pleas had he known that he would so qualify. … This lone assertion is insufficient to establish prejudice. See Parry v.

Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,767, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,823 Dr. W. B. Landry, Bryan Zeringue and Curtis Chauvin, Cross-Appellees v. All American Assurance Company, Republic Securities Corp., Defendants-Third-Party v. Bank of St. Charles & Trust Company, Third-Party Cross-Appellants

688 F.2d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 19, 1982

The lack of a clearly articulated standard, however, has resulted in the fragmentation of the district courts with respect to this issue. 17 Nor can it be said that a general consensus exists among the commentators. 18 12 … First, general principles of equity suggest that only those who have pursued their own interests with care and good faith should qualify for the judicially created private 10b-5 remedies.

Nyakatura v. Attorney General USA

256 F. App'x 461 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 2007

A conviction establishing that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud his or her employer qualifies as an offense that involves fraud or deceit, and therefore as an aggravated felony. … A conviction establishing that the defendant acted only with an intent to injure his or her employer does not. Id.

United States v. Donald Carson, United States of America v. Anthony Gallagher

969 F.2d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 9, 1992

In its opinion, the district court commented that “[a]t a hearing held prior to the trial in this case I found that the government had established the authenticity and integrity of the tapes. … Therefore, the district court’s finding that they were authentic must stand unless it is clearly erroneous. We hold that it was not.

Henkels & McCoy, Inc. v. Adochio

138 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 1998

Finally, as previously discussed, Henkels qualified as a creditor of Red Hawk at the time the distributions were made. … Thus, the district court did not need to determine what level of reserves was reasonable; it clearly had an ample factual basis upon which to determine that the complete failure to establish any reserves was a violation of

Benjamin Ex Rel. Yock v. Department of Public Welfare

701 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 2012

As we observed in our prior ruling, the United States Supreme Court established in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. … The District Court recognized that “all state ICF/MR residents are affected in some way by the Proposed Settlement Agreement because all residents will be subject to evaluation,” only to qualify this statement by adding that

Deakyne v. Commissioners Of Lewes

416 F.2d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 1969

(Del.) 448, 449-450 (1854), in charging on a forerunner of 17 Del.C. § 509, the trial judge said: The Legislature has qualified the common law in this State respecting roads claimed to be such by dedication. … title to the land by adverse possession or, in the alternative, that no trespass had occurred because its presence on the land was for the purpose of improving the property. 64 At the pre-trial conference, however, the Town clearly

In Re Community Bank of Northern Virginia

622 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2010

Later that year (in November 2003), the Court approved the filing of an amended 5 The “Qualifying States” are: Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North … A district court abuses its discretion if its “decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.”