16 results for 'judge:"Ramirez "'.
[Consolidated.] J. Ramirez finds the district court properly convicted defendants for money laundering based on sufficient evidence. DEA agents observed defendants carrying suitcases that were later found to contain large amounts of cocaine and $269,000 in cash, and they later found $432,000 hidden in a house associated with the organization. Although defendants' motion to suppress certain evidence alleged a warrantless search, the affidavit did not establish the search occurred without a warrant. Furthermore, defendants' motion for a new trial was properly dismissed as untimely. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Ramirez , Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 22-40570, Categories: Drug Offender, Evidence, Money Laundering
J. Ramirez vacates the district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Indian nationals who challenge the Secretary of State's distribution of visas. Because visa demand was high, the nationals' applications were held in abeyance until visa numbers were available - a delay they challenge. However, U.S. code governing discretionary relief prevents federal courts from hearing a challenge to the department's hold policies, as the actions are left to the discretion of the Attorney General. Vacated.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Ramirez , Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 23-40398, Categories: Government, Immigration, Agency
J. Ramirez finds the district court properly granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on worker's employment discrimination action. After having been absent from work for 18 months on a 12-month leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the employee continued spending unapproved time off work to care for her ailing father, and an investigation revealed she had been paid for 99 hours for time she did not work. Furthermore, after she was required to use personal sick days for time missed due to Covid-19, she threatened to infect her co-workers. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Ramirez , Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: 23-40404, Categories: Employment, Due Process, Covid-19
J. Ramirez holds that the trial court properly denied defendant's petition to vacate a murder conviction because of changes to the felony-murder rule, as he was the actual shooter. Although a determination of which of the robbers actually shot the store clerk was not litigated, defendant confessed that he shot the clerk because the clerk recognized him. That confession matched other evidence, so it was litigated for the purposes of collateral estoppel. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: E078627, Categories: Murder, Robbery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Ramirez finds that the trial court improperly denied defendant's petition for resentencing on a guilty plea to robbery. The trial court erred when it held that a stipulated sentence made defendant ineligible for relief under a statute that allows veterans to petition for resentencing. Amendments to the statute allow relief for defendants serving stipulated sentences. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: E080838, Categories: Robbery, Sentencing, Plea
[Modified.] J. Ramirez makes multiple changes related to the terms "low burden of proof" and "substantial evidence" with no change in judgment. The trial court properly denied defendant's petition to vacate his felony murder-based first degree murder conviction. The trial court properly admitted into evidence this court's previous opinion that contained a record of conviction showing he was the actual killer, which means the conviction survives changes to the felony murder law. Defendant did not object to the admission of the previous opinion and therefore he may not object on appeal. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: E079750, Categories: Evidence, Murder
J. Ramirez denies, in part, a company and its driver's motion to strike an expert and certain opinions during a couple's car collision-related action. Contrary to their argument, the couple's expert is qualified to testify on sleep and fatigue in the trucking industry and related federal motor carrier regulations.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: August 9, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv2047, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Negligence, Experts
J. Ramirez finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's petition to vacate his felony murder-based first degree murder conviction.
The trial court properly admitted into evidence this court's previous opinion that contained a record of conviction showing he was the actual killer, which means the conviction survives changes to the felony murder law. Defendant did not object to the admission of the previous opinion and therefore he may not object on appeal. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: E079750, Categories: Evidence, Murder
J. Ramirez finds that the trial court properly declined to resentence defendant, who was convicted of murder, for a firearm enhancement. On a previous remand, defendant was entitled to have the trial court strike a prior serious felony enhancement, but the trial court did not have jurisdiction to also consider the firearm enhancement. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: July 25, 2023, Case #: E080032, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Jurisdiction
[Modified.] J. Ramirez alters several sentences in a previously published opinion with no change in judgment. The trial court improperly granted the petition for a writ of mandate seeking to prevent the enforcement of a county measure limiting a supervisor���s terms, as well as monthly compensation. The term limit is constitutional, and the compensation can be set by initiative. It does not violate minimum wage laws. If the trial court erred by enjoining the measure, the error is forfeited, harmless or moot. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: E077772, Categories: Administrative Law, Government
[Modified.] J. Ramirez modifies the first paragraph in a prisoner rights opinion with no change in judgment. The trial court properly rejected a habeas challenge to defendant's conditions of confinement as time-barred. His petition raises the same issues regarding the treatment of a medical condition called porphyria that he raised in an earlier action related to the conditions of his pretrial confinement.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: June 7, 2023, Case #: E080436, Categories: Habeas, Murder, Prisoners' Rights
J. Ramirez finds that the trial court properly rejected a habeas challenge to defendant's conditions of confinement as time-barred. His petition raises the same issues regarding the treatment of a medical condition called porphyria that he raised in an earlier action related to the conditions of his pretrial confinement.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: May 30, 2023, Case #: E080436, Categories: Habeas, Murder, Prisoners' Rights
J. Ramirez finds the trial court improperly granted the petition for a writ of mandate seeking to prevent the enforcement of a county measure limiting a supervisor���s terms, as well as monthly compensation. The term limit is constitutional, and the compensation can be set by initiative. It does not violate minimum wage laws. If the trial court erred by enjoining the measure, the error is forfeited, harmless or moot. Reversed and remanded.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: E077772, Categories: Administrative Law, Government
J. Ramirez finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for voluntary manslaughter for shooting and killing a skateboarder during a confrontation. Substantial evidence existed as to the need to keep an informant���s identity confidential, which also showed that the informant���s information was substantially similar to tips that the police had previously received, and that the prosecution had previously produced in discovery. The informant had no exculpatory information and defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court���s refusing to allow examination. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: E078721, Categories: Evidence, Firearms, Manslaughter