Search for: "STATE V. RODRIGUEZ"
Results 1661 - 1680
of 1,846
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Oct 2018, 4:09 am
(Rodriguez v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 9:17 am
Coast Guard when the vessel is within the waters of the United States. [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 7:04 pm
See United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 9:17 am
Coast Guard when the vessel is within the waters of the United States. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 10:18 am
United States, 15-8629, and Beckles v. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 9:19 am
See Elektra v. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 2:57 pm
Rodriguez, No. 06-20774 Convictions and sentences concerning participation in a single, broad conspiracy to transport many aliens to Houston are affirmed where: 1.) two appellants depended on the aliens' transportation to Houston for their full payment, though they did not intend to take any aliens to Houston themselves; and 2.) third appellant knew that many aliens would be transported by trailer well past Robstown. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 7:22 am
SILBERMAN, Morrison v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 8:03 am
Coming next week: The real story on the Alvarez v. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 5:22 pm
In People v. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 7:54 pm
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16). [read post]
25 Aug 2024, 5:33 pm
” United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 4:30 am
Centocor, Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 7:49 am
United States and Hill v. [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 2:38 am
In one of the lawsuits, CREW v. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 7:50 pm
Butler, Medford OR) United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 9:05 pm
” [via Illinois Supreme Court prepared summary] United States v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 7:40 am
Co. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 7:10 pm
" The case is Hispanics United of Buffalo v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
Rodriguez-Amaya, No. 06-4514 Conviction for unlawful reentry after deportation by an aggravated felon is affirmed where the time defendant was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on administrative charges pending his removal was not detention "in connection with" his arrest, thus defendant's indictment did not violate the Speedy Trial Act. [read post]
