Search for: "United States v. Padilla"
Results 121 - 140
of 514
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2014, 11:24 am
White, quoted in "A Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of the United States" (PDF). [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
United States, 133 S. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
United States , 133 S. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
United States , 133 S. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 1:40 pm
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 2:07 pm
Supreme Court ruled in the Padilla v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 1:12 pm
The case of Padilla was about a defendant who was not a citizen of the United Stated pleading guilty to possession of an illegal substance. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 1:45 pm
Robert Castillo, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 15 justices attended the convention, including Hon. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 1:12 am
The United States Supreme Court in Chaidez rejected the reasoning of the SJC in Clarke and found that Padilla only applied to prospectively. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 3:49 am
’ United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 3:10 pm
United States — that Padilla does not apply retroactively — it is no surprise that I have had less to say, or at least, report on the matter. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 3:52 pm
The United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) states in a letter submitted by the People that defendant has been a permanent resident of the United States since 14 January 1998. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 2:42 pm
Defendant cites the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Jose Padilla v Kentucky, 130 S. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 12:45 pm
This is the requirement of the Padilla v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 6:00 am
United States, 342 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir.2003). [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 9:28 pm
There the court refused to apply Padilla v. [read post]
9 Jun 2013, 5:40 pm
United States holding that Padilla v Kentucky decided in 2010 was not retroactive; thereby depriving non-citizens of the protections afforded those defendants who pled guilty without being properly counseled about the deportation consequences of their guilty pleas in the past. [read post]
22 May 2013, 6:00 am
That is, Congress should state explicitly that detention authority under the AUMF and the NDAA does not extend to any persons captured within the territory of the United States. [read post]
9 May 2013, 8:05 am
Citizens Recall that under the landmark case of Padilla v. [read post]
8 May 2013, 8:48 am
” This rule reflects the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. [read post]
