DOCSLIB.ORG

District Clerk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
District Clerk If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,.p.l I r r " 28 2 5 1.0 :: 11111 . _ 11111 . 3 2 I IIIII~~ n~M1. 11111 - . 3 6 Ik\ 11111 . BOO 4 0 Ii'-2. 001,I~. • 0 I• I :ij'",li IIIII~~ 111111.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 150mm ->-----~-..... 6" UNI,TED STATES COURT. DIRECTORY Sf March 1, 1986 U.S. DepFrtment of Justice Natlonallnstitute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originallng it. Points of view or opinions staled in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ~l:lted material has been granted by • • Publlc DOmaln Lnllted States Court Directory to the National Criminal JUstice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ " ) sion of the epp.y.ri:ght owner. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 I 053 03 • UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Washington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division Office of the Chief (633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (763-1865) • • The information in this Directory is current as of March I, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court ...................................................................................................................... • United States Courts of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.... ................ .... ........ .. .......... ................ .. ................ ...................... 2 First Circuit ...... ..... ...... .................. ........ .......... .......................... ............. ........ ........ ............ 4 Second Circuit....................................................................................................... .............. 5 Third Circuit....................................................................................................................... 8 Fourth Circuit ..................................................................................................................... 10 Fifth Circuit ........................................................................................................................ 12 Sixth Circuit. ....................................................................................................................... 15 Seventh Circuit .................................................................................................................... 17 Eighth Circuit................. ............................ .. .......................... ............................................ 19 Ninth Circuit ....................................................................................................................... 21 Tenth Circuit............ ........................................................................................................... 25 Eleventh Circuit .................................................................................................................... 27 Federal Circuit.. ..... ..... .. ......................... ........ .............................. ........................................ 29 Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals .... ., ................................................................................. 31 United States Claims Court ........................................................................................................ 34 United States Court of International Trade .................................................................................... 36 Special Court, Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 .................................................................. 38 • JUdicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation ....................................................................................... 39 United States Court of Military Appeals ........................................................................................ 40 United States Tax Court ............................................................................................................ 41 United States District Courts Alabama Northern....... .................................................................................................... .............. 44 Middle ............................................................................................................................ 46 Southern......................................................................................................................... 47 Alaska ............................................................................................................................... 49 Arizona .............................................................................................................................. 51 Arkansas Eastern ........................................................................................................................... 54 Western .......................................................................................................................... 56 California Northern ......................................................................................................................... 58 Eastern ........................................................................................................................... 62 Central ........................................................................................................................... 66 Southern......................................................................................................................... 72 '~ '.', ~,~ '(> Colorado ................................. , ............................................................................................. , .. ""4 Connecticut.................................................................................................................... .... 77 Delaware ........ '" .................................................................................................... ,........ .... 79 District of Columbia ............................................................................................................. 81 Florida • Northern......................................................................................................................... 84 Middle ............................................................................................................................ 86 Southern. .. .. ........... ..... ....... .. ... ....... ........ ...... .. ...... .... ..... ........ .......... ........ ..... ........... .. 89 Georgia Northern......................................................................................................................... 92 Middle ............................................................................................................................ 95 Southern ......................................................................................................................... 97 Guam ................................................................................................................................ 99 Hawaii. .............................................................................................................................. 100 Idaho ........................................................................................................... '" ..., ............... 102 Illinois Northern ......................................................................................................................... 104 Central ........................................................................................................................... 108 Southern ......................................................................................................................... 110 Indiana Northern ............................................................................................................... '.......... 112 • Southern ......................................................................................................................... 114 Iowa Northern ......................................................................................................................... 116 Southern ......................................................................................................................... 117 Kansas ............................................................................................................................... 119 Kentucky Eastern ........................................................................................................................... 122 Western .......................................................................................................................... 124 Louisiana Eastern ........................................................................................................................... 126 Middle ..................................................... '" .................. " ................................................ 129 Western .......................................................................................................................... 131 Maine ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument Conferences, Events and Lectures 2017 List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "List of Judges 1985–2017" (2017). Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument. 1. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences, Events and Lectures at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. List of Judges that Have Served the Moot Court Showcase Argument 2009 to present held in McCarten Court Room, Eck Hall of Law Updated: March 2017 Name Yr. Served ND Grad Court Judge Alice Batchelder 3/3/2017 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Justice Matthew Durrant 3/3/2017 Utah Supreme Court NDLS 1992 Judge John Blakey 3/3/2017 BA-UND 1988 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Chief Justice Matthew G. Durrant 2/25/2106 Utah Supreme Court Judge Alice Batchelder 2/25/2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly 2/25/2016 BA-UND 1983 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel F. Dubina 2/26/2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Chief Judge Frederico A. Moreno 2/26/2015 United States District Court - Miami, FL Judge Patricia O'Brien Cotter 2/26/2015 NDLS 1977 Montana Supreme Court Judge Margaret A.
    [Show full text]
  • Expertise and Opinion Assignment on the Courts of Appeals: a Preliminary Investigation
    EXPERTISE AND OPINION ASSIGNMENT ON THE COURTS OF APPEALS: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Jonathan Remy Nash* Abstract This Article examines the role of expertise in judicial opinion assignment and offers four contributions: First, this Article develops a general theory of opinion assignment on multimember courts. Second, this Article uses that theory to predict how expertise might influence opinion assignment. Third, because the theory advanced in this Article suggests that the courts of appeals are far more likely to witness experience-based opinion assignment than is the Supreme Court, this Article contributes to an understanding of opinion assignment practices in this understudied area. Fourth, this Article identifies two settings in which the theory this Article advances should have observable implications, and this Article proceeds to test those implications empirically. It finds that, in the years following the initial adoption of the Sentencing Guidelines, circuit judges who were Sentencing Commissioners were more likely to have assigned to them opinions raising sentencing issues. It also finds that circuit judges who previously served as bankruptcy judges were more likely to have bankruptcy cases assigned to them. The Guidelines setting, moreover, allows for a natural experiment, in that we can test whether judges who served as Commissioners saw disproportionate levels of opinion assignment in criminal cases before the Guidelines took effect; it turns out, consistent with the theory, that they did not. * Professor of Law, Emory
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Government Manual 1997/1998
    The United States Government Manual 1997/1998 Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration ?1 Revised May 30, 1997 Raymond A. Mosley, Director of the Federal Register. John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States. On the Cover: Jackie Robinson as a Brooklyn Dodger infielder (from the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration's Still Pictures Branch, 306±PS± 50±4370). The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) joins the Nation in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's breaking the color barrier in major league baseball. NARA's mission is to ensure access to essential evidence that documents the rights of American citizens, the actions of Federal officials, and the national experience through its nationwide system of repositories, public programs, and Federal Register publications. Records from NARA's holdings reflect that Robinson's contributions extended well beyond the playing field to the larger field of law and government. Every American President who held office between 1956 and 1972 received letters from Jackie Robinson expressing the passionate and, at times, combative spirit with which Robinson worked to remove the racial barriers in American society so that all citizens would receive rights guaranteed by the Constitution. For more information on Jackie Robinson's legacy as seen through Federal records, visit NARA's Digital Classroom exhibit, Jackie Robinson: Beyond the Playing Field (Internet, http://www.nara.gov/education/), a collection of correspondence, photographs, and three lesson plans that focus on civil rights history, character education values, and civic responsibility. Special thanks to CMG Worldwide and the Robinson family for their cooperation and permission to use the Jackie Robinson image and the 50th anniversary logo on this year's Manual cover.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002-2003 Year in Review
    Oregon Lawyer 2 0 0 3 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SCHOOL OF LAW Since 1884, Oregon’s Public 2002-2003 Law School YEAR IN REVIEW NEW STUDENTS Academically Impressive, Geographically Diverse— and More Applicants PROFESSORS Federal Prosecutor, Corporate Attorneys Join Faculty PROGRAMS Appropriate Dispute Resolution and Environmental Law Programs Expand, Portland Business Program Grows. Public Interest/Pro Bono Champs Again! PICTURES Four Seasons at the Knight Law Center, 2003 Commencement and Frohnmayer Award Banquet KUDOS Volunteers Transform Law Students into Lawyers WWW.LAW.UOREGON.EDU U O S C H O O L O F L A W MESSAGE FROM THE DEAN NEW FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS, are using our new space in the Portland Center STRENGTHENED PROGRAMS AMONG building owned by the UO for summer school FIRST YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS classes, student recruitment, and career services activities. It has been an exciting and eventful first year, and We continue to add energetic new faculty with I am very pleased with the steps forward that the impressive academic and practice credentials to law school has taken. our ranks. Tom Lininger, who previously worked This year we had 1,900 as a federal prosecutor in Oregon and with the applicants for 180 places law firm of Skadden, Arps in San Francisco, will in our entering class, be teaching evidence and legal profession. Judd and the students we Sneirson, who previously worked for Willkie, admitted as the Class of Farr & Gallagher in New York and as a law clerk 2006 are among the best for a federal judge, will be teaching contracts credentialed and most and business associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. Juan R. Torruella
    IN MEMORIAM Hon. Juan R. Torruella "Judge Torruella’s embodiment of the figure of a judge was, however, most evident in his unwavering commitment to the Judiciary’s role in ensuring that the interest of justice was duly served." - William A. Sewell-Fernández SPRING 2021 | ISSUE NO. 59 SPRING 2021 | ISSUE NO. Index Editor’s Committee Message pg.2 Clerks Tidings pg.9 President’s Message pg.3 Commentary: What’s taking up so long for judges to rule? pg.13 Upcoming Events pg.3 FBA Student Chapters pg.15 Torruella: unclassifiable hero pg.4 FBA’s Federal Bar Review Course pg.16 In Honor of My Mentor pg.5 President Blurbs of Past Activities pg.18 Note on Judge Juan R. Torruella pg.5 Joseph G. Feldstein-Del Valle The Judge: a peek from the inside pg.6 President Elect Linette Figueroa-Torres Judge Torruella: A legacy of commitment to justice pg.8 Vice President Diana Pérez-Seda National Delegate Sarika Angulo-Velázquez Secretary Message from the Editor’s Committee Jaime Torrens-Dávila Treasurer Juan R. Rivera-Font Directors Roberto Abesada-Agüet Cristina Caraballo-Colón Alfonso Pérez-Díaz Sarika J. Angulo-Velázquez Zarel Soto-Acabá Linette Figueroa-Torres Cecilia M. Suau-Badia Cecilia M. Suau-Badía Carolina Velaz-Rivero With this issue we commemorate the most be remembered as our esteemed Honorable Judge Juan R. Torruella friend, mentor, and colleague. Today Immediate Past President (1933-2020). In honor of Judge Torru- we celebrate him. Natalia Morales-Echeverría ella, we look back to his legacy and remember with great appreciation his In this issue you will find articles writ- unconditional help to the Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Daily New Orleans, Louisiana
    November 20-30, 2003 77th Fall North American Bridge Championships New Orleans, Louisiana DailyVolume 77, Number 3 Sunday, November 23,Bulletin 2003 Editors: Henry Francis and Jody Latham Teacher defeats her students in Venice Cup final Victory did not come easy against a determined team from China, but the USA I team was finally able to celebrate with a 229.3-210 victory in the Venice Cup final in Monte Carlo earlier this month. America had just missed by a fraction against the Netherlands in the 2000 Venice Cup in Bermuda. Lynn Baker and Kerri Sanborn When it was over, Kathie Wei-Sender was happy Kyle Larsen and Jo Morse Baker, Sanborn hang on to congratulate the Chinese players for their good showing, but she breathed a sigh of relief that her pro- Morse, Larsen win for LM Women’s triumph teges didn’t play just a little bit better. Wei-Sender has Lynn Baker and Kerri Sanborn took the lead in done a lot to promote bridge in China, and she has LM Open Pairs personally helped the Chinese women’s team to the second final session of the Life Master Jo Morse and Kyle Larsen posted a strong climb the international ladder over the years. Women’s Pairs and held on for the win despite a 65.10% game in the first final session of the Life “They’re all my students,” she proudly proclaims. determined charge by Joan Jackson and Robin Klar, Master Open Pairs and followed with a 60.37% the leaders after the first final session.
    [Show full text]
  • Case No. 09-2473 in the United States Court of Appeals
    Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 CASE NO. 09-2473 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Defendants-Appellees, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (District Court #1:07-cv-356) APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF MICHAEL NEWDOW ROSANNA FOX Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Plaintiffs PO BOX 233345 12 ELDORADO CIRCLE SACRAMENTO, CA 95823 NASHUA, NH 03062 (916) 424-2356 (603) 318-8479 [email protected] [email protected] Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................3 I. “God” means “God” ...........................................................................4 II. The “Power, Prestige and Financial Support of Government” Has Real Consequences............................................14 III. The Organizations Which Have Involved Themselves in this Case Demonstrate that the Case is About (Christian) Monotheism........................................................................................15 IV. Congress’ 2002 Reaffirmation of the Pledge was a Sham
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Operations 1999-2003
    Report of Operations 1999-2003 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Héctor M. Laffitte, Chief Judge Frances Ríos de Morán, Clerk of Court On the Cover: Federico Degetau Federal Building and Clemente Ruíz Nazario United States Courthouse San Juan, Puerto Rico United States District Court District of Puerto Rico UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES Hon. Héctor M. Laffitte, Chief Judge Hon. Juan M. Pérez-Giménez Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo Hon. José A. Fusté Hon. Salvador E. Casellas Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez Hon. Jay A. García-Gregory SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini Hon. Raymond L. Acosta Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES Hon. Jesús A. Castellanos Hon. Justo Arenas Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí OFFICE OF THE CLERK Frances Ríos de Morán, Esq., Clerk of Court Angel A. Valencia-Aponte, Esq., Chief Deputy Clerk Laura E. Rivera, Operations Manager Damaris Delgado-Vega, Esq., Administrative Manager Norman Aybar, Systems Manager Carmen I. Arroyo, Human Resources Manager Table of Contents Page Greetings from the Chief Judge ..................... 4 Message from the Clerk of Court .................... 5 Mission Statement ...............................6 Judicial Committees.............................. 7 Highlights ......................................8 Judicial Milestones ..............................12 Court Profile ...................................13 Operations ....................................14 Statistical Charts................................17 Human Resources ..............................20
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2016 – 50Th Anniversary Special Issue
    A publication of the Federal Bar Association, Hon. Raymond L. Acosta Puerto Rico Chapter SUMMER 2016 ISSUE NO. 57 50TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL ISSUE IN THIS ISSUE Anniversary Message from the Chief Judge of the From Cardstock to Paperless: 50 Years of Evolution • 26 U.S. District Court • 3 Trial by Jury • 31 The History of the U.S. District Court for the District of The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Office: District of Puerto Rico as an Article III Court Over Five Decades • 6 Puerto Rico • 33 Historical Development of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Did You Know Answers • 36 for the District of Puerto Rico • 18 Magistrate Judges in the District of Puerto Rico: A History of Service • 21 IN EVERY ISSUE: A Legislative History of the District of Puerto Rico Message from the Editor • 2 Article III Court • 24 The Federal Bar Association Hon. Raymond L. Acosta Puerto Rico Chapter MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR Luz C. Molinelli-González With this issue we commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the District of Puerto Rico Article III Court. In honor of this event, we look back to the Court’s history as well as its current and future projects. As you may already know, the Hon. Raymond L. Acosta PR Chapter of the Federal Bar Association– BOARD OF DIRECTORS Puerto Rico Chapter (previously the Antilles Chapter of the FBA) was President founded only one year after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Public Salvador J. Antonetti Stutts Law 89-571. Since its inception, our Chapter has been blessed with the President Elect continued support from the federal judiciary, its judges, magistrates, Mariano A.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 63 | Issue 3 Article 3 3-2012 Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L. Wasby Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen L. Wasby, Why Sit En Banc?, 63 Hastings L.J. 747 (2012). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol63/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Wasby_63-HLJ-747 (Do Not Delete) 3/26/2012 5:28 PM Why Sit En Banc? Stephen L. Wasby* U.S. courts of appeals seldom provide reasons for granting or denying rehearing en banc. The most likely reason for rehearing en banc is that other judges believe the three-judge panel deciding the case had erred, although rehearing is not sought each time judges disagree with a panel. The formal bases for rehearing a case en banc include the three desiderata of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35—conflict with circuit precedent (intracircuit conflict), conflict with Supreme Court rulings, and presence of an issue of “exceptional importance”—and courts’ rules and general orders. Judges introduce other considerations, such as an intercircuit conflict, institutional concerns about resources necessary to hear a case en banc, and whether a case should proceed directly to the Supreme Court. This Article presents a detailed description of reasons judges offer each other as they seek to have a case taken en banc or argue against such rehearing after a three-judge panel has filed its decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Branch
    The United States Government Manual 2001/2002 Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:31 Aug 20, 2001 Jkt 188578 PO 00000 Frm 00695 Fmt 6996 Sfmt 6996 D:\GOVMAN\188578.111 APPS10 PsN: 188578 Revised June 1, 2001 Raymond A. Mosley, Director of the Federal Register. John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States. On the cover: World War-I era American postcard with bald eagle and American flag, postmarked 1917. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the only eagle unique to North America. Admired for its majestic appearance and self-reliance, it became the national symbol in 1782 when the Second Continental Congress approved the design of the Nation’s official seal. The Great Seal of the United States includes a shield that, according to Secretary Charles Thomson’s journal of the Congress for June 20, 1782, is ‘‘borne on the breast of an American Eagle without any supporters, to denote that the United States of America ought to rely on their own virtue.’’ Although the bald eagle has endured as an American icon, by the 1960s only an estimated 450 nesting pairs remained in the conterminous (lower 48) States. Farmers and ranchers aggressively hunted the bird to protect their livestock. In 1940 Congress passed the Bald Eagle Protection Act which made it illegal to kill, harass, possess without a permit, or sell bald eagles. Still, the population continued to decline, largely due to the introduction of DDT and other pesticides, which contaminated the lakes and streams where the eagle fished.
    [Show full text]