Search for: "United States v. Rodriguez"
Results 21 - 40
of 1,114
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2014, 4:30 am
United States and argues that we continue... [read post]
17 May 2018, 1:06 pm
Coupled with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 12:27 pm
The United States Supreme Court held in Rodriguez v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 9:28 am
The Government has filed its opposition to the recon petition in United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 10:08 am
United States, 129 S. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 1:22 pm
The NTA alleged that Rodriguez (1) was not a citizen or national of the United States, (2) was a native and citizen of Mexico, (3) had entered the United States near Otay Mesa, California, on approximately September 27, 2010, and (4) had not been admitted or paroled after inspection by an immigration officer. . . . [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 9:39 am
On Friday, the defense filed a petition seeking reconsideration in United States v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 12:42 pm
United States. [read post]
28 May 2014, 12:42 pm
United States. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 12:27 pm
The United States Supreme Court held in Rodriguez v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 3:00 am
United States Bank National Association, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007). [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 9:11 am
Yesterday the Government asked CAAF to strike the defense's reconsideration petition in United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2024, 6:24 am
They walked from Honduras to Mexico, where Reyes paid someone to smuggle them into the United States. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 10:35 am
While the order isn't yet up on CAAF's web site, I understand that the court denied the petition to reconsider its ruling in United States v. [read post]
26 May 2012, 9:26 am
The appellant in United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 10:44 am
It is Rodriguez v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 9:23 am
United States, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 9:23 am
United States, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 2:04 pm
" United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 12:25 pm
This Article shows that this decision entails staggering macroeconomic costs, undermines human development in the United States, and has hindered the government from promoting general welfare, domestic tranquility, and common defense. [read post]
