Results for “United States v. Bobadilla-Lopez”

…f Mongolia Vice-Chairman Chief Executive Officer Vice-Chairman and President Anchor Managing Director Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York Chairman Director, Corporate Affairs Senior Vice-President, Integrated Marketing Communications and Cap...

183 technologies. It is unclear how the United Kingdom’s Brexit plan will affect the stated desire of the UK government to ensure that critical technologies do not fall into Chinese hands. For years, the Chinese telecom behemoth Huawei has provided broadband gear and mobile net...

30 Origins and Structure From the 1950s to the 1970s, when the United States maintained an alliance with the regime of Chiang Kai-shek on Taiwan, pro-PRC organizations faced challenges gaining traction in the United States. During the 1950s, the FBI, aided by pro-Kuomintang sec...

SECTION 4 Universities American universities have long played a leading role in relations between the United States and China. Ever since the Carter administration first explored the possibility with Deng Xiaoping and other Chinese counterparts of sending Chinese students to th...

…e gave this hypocritical ploy any credence. “There they go again” was the general response when Soviet diplomats at the United Nations postured against the imperfections of the United States, while their Communist masters locked up dissidents, made a mockery of justice,” and kept...

…s redundant, [*847] jurisdiction over the same regulated activities. '4 The most important version of this model in the United States, however, is criminal justice federalism. Due to the steady growth of federal criminal law, jurisdiction, and institutional capacity over the las...

…ee Prosecutor v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 215 N.W.2d 145, 147-48 (Mich. 1974). For similar examples in federal cases, see United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157, 159-60 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Perate, 719 F.2d 706, 710-11 (4th Cir. 1983); United States v. Smith, 853 F. Supp....

…oncluded that the Rules should incorporate, but not go beyond, the specific statutory provisions [in the CVRA]}."). 27 United States v. Fortier, 242 F.3d 1224, 1230 (10th Cir. 2001). In the interest of full disclosure, I was the attorney in question. 8 Td. 29 See United States...

…o serve as a foundation for waging a global jihad against all of the perceived enemies of Islam, and in particular, the United States.'!? As the 9-11 Commission explained: *27 April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad. Moscow declared it would pull its military forces out...

…rrorist organization hijacked four commercial airliners and used those planes as weapons in a coordinated attack on the United States (“the September 11th Attacks”). The September 11th Attacks were the culmination of a campaign to wage jihad against the United States, set in moti...

…iteria and can give rise to tort claims under the ATS. See, e.g., Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 R3d 232, 239 (2d Cir. 1996); cf United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1991). What the district court failed to recognize, however, is that the broader concept of international...

… CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 8, 2011 legislative history because the CVRA ‘is un- ambiguous.’’ Response of the United States, In re Antrobus, No. 08-4002, at 12 n.7 (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2008). At the time that the Justice Department filed this brief, no Court of Appeals...

…that the truth is seldom black and white, and to mitigate the folly of the French in trusting them. Money today, in the United States and elsewhere, is not backed by any commodity. It is “government fiat money” backed by the taxing power of government. That may be Chapter 1: Reco...

…ires examining biased declinations as well. But these doctrines are wholly deferential to prosecutorial discretion. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 469 (1996) (holding that equal protection doctrine bars racially biased charging); Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 59...

…e to have written a more general °6 The rarely invoked 10 Amendment makes this clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 86 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017173