Search for: "Does 1-5" Results 161 - 180 of 53,871
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jul 2021, 2:19 pm by Yuanchung Lee
§ 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) — requiring a 5-year minimum sentence where the offense involved “10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of” fentanyl — even if it does not qualify as a “controlled substance analogue” under 21 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Nov 2022, 12:38 pm by Russell Knight
” 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1)(F)(emphasis mine) Under Illinois law, the “child’s physical care arrangements” do not have a great impact on the child support…until they do. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 7:11 am by admin
Nor does Florida have any gun licensing requirements. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 1:35 am
Passing an examination does not give an eligible a right to demand that he or she be appointed from the eligible listPaolini v Nassau County, Supreme Court, Justice Winick, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]The fact that an individual passes an examination does not give him or her any right to demand that he or she be appointed from the eligible list. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 2:43 pm by Jon Sands
Morales, No. 09-30047 (1-5-10). [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 8:56 am by Bill Marler
The number of cases identified in each area is as follows: Texas (190), Iowa (153), Nebraska (85), Florida (27), Wisconsin (11), Illinois (9), Arkansas (5), New York City (5), Georgia (4), Kansas (3), Louisiana (3), Missouri (3), Ohio (2), Connecticut (1), Minnesota (1), New Jersey (1), and New York (1). [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 7:17 pm by Denis Stearns
  If romaine lettuce does not have information about harvest region or does not indicate that it has been grown indoors (i.e., hydroponically- and greenhouse-grown), throw it away or return it to the place of purchase. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 2:01 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
” ’782 patent, col. 5, lines 48–51 (emphasis added). [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 8:29 am by Micah Gates, RWS, WDTN
If conviction A requires proof of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, while conviction B requires proof of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, then convictions for A and B do not violate Double Jeopardy. [read post]