|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for Samuel Vini E Atty
Name: Samuel Vini E Atty
Address: 106 F Cosmopolis, WA 98537
Phone Number: 360-532-7473
|
Specialties:
|
Dui And Traffic Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USA v HART IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-60304 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODALTON HART Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) _ June 12, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and WIENER Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Rodalton Hart ("Rodalton") appeals his conviction by a jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 ("§ 1014") and 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B) ("§ 201(b)(1)(B)"). We conclude that the United States's ("the government's") "summary" witness did far more than summarize previously-presented evidence, and that, when the summary witness's testimony and accompanying documentary evidence is redacted, the remaining evidence is insufficient to prove the government's case against Rodalton beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reverse Rodalton's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand the case for a new trial. I. Facts and Proceedings Rodalton has been a resident and family farmer in Holmes County, Mississippi for most of his life. After his graduation from Jacksonville State University in 1972, he returned to Holmes County to help his father run the family farm. In addition to helping his father, Rodalton started his own farm, gradually expanding his operation from thirteen acres - cultivating row crops and raising cattle - to several thousand acres by the mid-1980s. His success in farming was among the factors that led Mike Espy, who was Secretary of Agriculture at the time, to appoint Rodalton as one of Espy's advisors. In 1993, Rodalton and his brothers, who were also involved in farming, formed five separate partnerships, hoping to run their farming operations more efficiently by sharing labor, land, and equipment, and thereby maximize their income. Among the partnerships were R & C Farms (Rodalton and his wife, Carmella), and C & ...
UNITED STATES et al. v. UNITED FOODS, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 00-276. Argued April 17, 2001-Decided June 25, 2001 The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act mandates that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales. Respondent refused to pay the assessment, claiming that it violates the First Amendment. It filed a petition challenging the assessment with the Secretary of Agriculture, and the United States filed an enforcement action in the District Court. After the administrative appeal was denied, respondent sought review in the District Court, which consolidated the two cases. In granting the Government summary judgment, the court found dispositive the decision in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U. S. 457, that the First Amendment was not violated when agricultural marketing orders, as part of a larger regulatory marketing scheme, required producers of California tree fruit to pay assessments for product advertising. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Glickman did not control because the mandated payments in this case were not part of a comprehensive statutory agricultural marketing program. Held: The assessment requirement violates the First Amendment. Pp. 2-11. (a) Even viewing the expression here as commercial speech, there is no basis under Glickman or this Court's other precedents to sustain the assessments. The First Amendment may prevent the government from, inter alia, compelling individuals to pay subsidies for speech to which they object. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209; Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1. Such precedents provide the beginning point for analysis here. Respondent wants to convey the message that its brand of mushrooms is superior to those grown by other producers, and it objects to being charged for a contrary message which seems to be f...
SUGAR CANE GROWERS v VENEMAN ANN M., U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsSUGAR CANE GROWERS 1000 v VENEMAN ANN M. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 11, 2002 Decided May 10, 2002 No. 01-5335 Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, et al., Appellants v. Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (01cv01904) Raymond B. Ludwiszewski argued the cause for appel- lants. With him on the briefs were Peter E. Seley and Hassan A. Zavareei. David J. Ball, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, ar- gued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., United States Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney. William Bradford Reynolds and John F. Bruce were on the brief for amicus curiae United States Beet Sugar Associ- ation in support of appellees. Before: Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges, and Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida Crystals Corporation, and Refined Sugars, Inc., appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment holding that appellants lacked standing. The court dismissed their claims that the United States Department of Agriculture failed to comply with the Adminis- trative Procedure Act1 and the Food Security Act of 19852 in implementing a payment-in-kind program for the 2001 sugar crop by press release. We think appellants have demonstrat- ed standing and because the Department did not comply with the APA or the Food Security Act, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand to that court to in turn remand to the Department. I. In the United States, sugar production, which the govern- ment support...
|
|
|