Search for: "Does 1-4 v. United States Attorney Office"
Results 421 - 440
of 1,970
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2015, 6:00 am
Attorney Gen. of the United States, 277 F.3d 1305, 1308 n.2 (2002), the 11th Circuit held that a stand-alone detainer does not put an individual in custody of ICE. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 12:27 pm
Mason, 527 F.3d 252, 255 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. [read post]
25 Nov 2017, 7:41 am
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 10:29 am
Y 4. [read post]
21 Jul 2012, 7:57 am
She answered the police questions stating that all of the marijuana in her pockets amounted to 4 ounces. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 11:43 am
United States and Beckles v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 9:43 am
Courtesy of Law Offices of Dena Alo-Colbeck “Writing and Research for Washington Attorneys” Washington State Law Washington State Supreme Court: State v. [read post]
16 Nov 2020, 3:55 am
The firm represents clients throughout North Carolina and the United States. [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 9:53 am
Cir. 2018) [4] WaveLink, Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
However, the "date of hire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine an individual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., the individual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.For example, assume Employee A was provisionally appointed on January 1, and Employee B was appointed February 1, of the same year. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
However, the "date of hire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine an individual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., the individual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.For example, assume Employee A was provisionally appointed on January 1, and Employee B was appointed February 1, of the same year. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 3:52 pm
I’m talking about the latest case from the United States Supreme Court — Florence v. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 8:04 pm
COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States-18 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 6:53 am
The district court must then determine based on the totality of those facts whether, in light of the mandates of both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, Appellant's consent to the officers' entry into the mobile home was voluntary. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 11:22 am
(Per the Court, those cases are: (1) County of Inyo v. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 10:47 pm
United City of Yorkville v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 7:34 am
Courtesy of Law Offices of Dena Alo-Colbeck “Writing and Research for Washington Attorneys” The following criminal cases of note were decided this week: Washington State Law Washington State Supreme Court: State v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 4:49 am
Id. at ¶71.[1] This state of affairs ended in 1994, when Congress enacted the MMPA Amendments of 1994, Pub. [read post]
22 Nov 2008, 3:48 pm
In its Answer Brief, the State does not address Teffeteller v. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
Powell met with Trump in the Oval Office and can thus testify to Trump's statements that are relevant to his state of mind. [read post]
