10000 search results for query *

Summary: 262 F.2d 234 Cecil JONES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. 81, 84, 149 F.2d 381, 384; Shore v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 2d 760, reversing in part, United States v. Bell, D.C.D.C.1955, 126 F. Supp. 226, 228, 209 F.2d 789, 791, where, citing Gouled v. United States, 1921, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S. Ct. 261, 65 L. Ed. 394, 240 F.2d 632; Simmons v. United States, 1953, 92 U.S. App.D.C.

Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 22, 2016 Decided November 4, 2016 No. 15–5121 CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JR., APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. more.

Summary: 958 F.2d 1085 294 U.S.App.D.C. 228] on this supplementation to the record, we now hold that Jordan had been "seized" at the time he consented to the search of his bag, the discovery of the drugs was a direct product of a seizure for which the government admits there was no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, see Jordan, 951 F.2d at 1280-81; and accordingly the drugs should have been suppressed, and the conviction based upon them must be reversed. United States v. Battista, 876 F.2d 201, more.

Summary: 413 F.2d 1103 134 U.S.App.D.C. IV 1965-1968) provides, in pertinent part: 4 'An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the United States from the district courts to a court of appeals in all criminal cases, in the following instances: 5 'From an order, granting a motion for return of seized property or a motion to suppress evidence, made before the trial of a person charged with a violation of any law of the United States, if the United States attorney certifies to the judge who granted such more.


Summary: 820 F.2d 1293 43 Fair Empl. (BNA) 1880, 43 Empl. HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: 1 From October 1, 1977 through September 30, 1978, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia ("MPD" or "Department") had in place a voluntary affirmative action plan ("Plan") designed to place "special emphasis" on the hiring and advancement of females and minorities in those employment areas where there existed an "obvious imbalance in the numbers of females and minorities employed."In their more.

Summary: 826 F.2d 60 263 U.S.App.D.C. Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transportation, 753 F.2d 120, 130 (D.C.Cir.1985); Adler v. Lewis, 675 F.2d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.1982). 753 F.2d at 128. See Monsanto Co. v. Kennedy, 613 F.2d 947, 955-56 (D.C.Cir.1979). See Druid Hills Civic Ass'n v. Federal Highway Administration, 772 F.2d 700, 716 (11th Cir.1985) ("The Secretary is free to choose among alternatives which cause substantially equal damage to parks or historic sites."); Maryland Wildlife Federation, 747 F.2d more.

Summary: 262 F.2d 456 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL NO. 554, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. Mr. Norton J. Come, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Jerome D. Fenton, General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Stephen Leonard, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor more.

Summary: 840 F.2d 957 268 U.S.App.D.C. In the case in chief, Union of Concerned Scientists v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 824 F.2d 108 (D.C.Cir.1987), this court vacated the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) "backfit" rule for reasons stated in that opinion. 6 The government's victory on the primary issue, with the necessary result of its being substantially justified, leaves two possibilities under our cases: UCS is entitled to no fees if (as I believe) Battles Farm Co. v. Pierce, 806 F.2d more.

Summary: 876 F.2d 152 277 U.S.App.D.C. (CCH) 75,666 John F. ROBINSON, Trustee For the Francis E. Heydt Company, Appellant, v. Richard CHENEY, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, et al. D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: On December 24, 1987, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) debarred the Francis E. Heydt Company (FHC), a manufacturer of military apparel, from bidding on any contract or subcontract with any agency in the Executive Branch until September 29, 1990. If the agency finds that the contractor's more.

Summary: 195 F.2d 766 In re DOOR. ___, 195 F.2d 764,1 was appealed to this court the appellant therein (the above named respondent Door) applied to us to enjoin the appellee Postmaster General, pending the appeal, from giving effect to his order of January 17, 1951, directed to the Postmaster at Los Angeles, the validity of which was involved in the main appeal. 5 Thereafter,3 the United States Attorney filed a motion in this court on behalf of the Postmaster General for a rule to show cause why Door more.

Summary: 184 F.2d 263 87 U.S.App.D.C. [87 U.S.App.D.C. 6 On the face of the form appellants also referred to an attached statement, which statement was two and a half single-spaced, [87 U.S.App.D.C. We think it is clear beyond dispute that the first claim was sufficiently broad [87 U.S.App.D.C. The adjusted basis consisted of cost (both original and additional capital costs by way of improvements) less depreciation accrued or accruable.6 Depreciation was accruable in respect to property used in a trade more.

Summary: 937 F.2d 676 290 U.S.App.D.C. See United States v. Watt, 910 F.2d 587, 589 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 937 (4th Cir.)2d 98 (1990); United States v. Moskowitz, 883 F.2d 1142, 1155 (2d Cir.1989); cf. United States v. Tellez, 882 F.2d 141, 143 (5th Cir.1989) (determinations under section 3E1.1 are "entitled to great deference, greater than that accorded under the clearly erroneous standard"). In construing this section, other courts have held that it requires a defendant more.

Summary: 745 F.2d 1476 240 U.S.App.D.C. The Department of Justice as appellee and cross-appellant primarily challenges the District Court's award of attorneys' fees to appellant, arguing that Mr. Weisberg did not substantially prevail in this litigation; that even if eligible for such an award he is not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees; and that even if Mr. Weisberg was both eligible for and entitled to an attorneys' fees award, the award was excessive. See Open America v. Watergate Special more.

Summary: 804 F.2d 1254 256 U.S.App.D.C. 1 Upon consideration of appellant's Motion for Emergency Relief and Motion for Summary Reversal or Stay of Order of Civil Contempt, the appellees' response thereto, appellant's response to the court's order to show cause, and the record of the proceedings before the district court, it is 2 ORDERED by the court on its own motion, for the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum, that the judgment of contempt be vacated and the case remanded to the district more.

Summary: 85 F.3d 664 318 U.S.App.D.C. [318 U.S.App.D.C. [318 U.S.App.D.C. The dispute over the proper answer to that question is narrowed by the Government's concession that the search here cannot be upheld as a protective sweep in view of our holding in United States v. Ford, 56 F.3d 265 (D.C.Cir.1995) (protective sweep requires articulable suspicion that area to be searched harbored individual posing danger). When the police arrived [318 U.S.App.D.C. Analysis 11 A warrantless search or seizure inside more.