DOCSLIB.ORG

Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 13 0000 All Crimes 13 0000 All Drug Crimes 14 0001 Violent 15 0002 Sex Offense 16 0003 Property 17 0004 Drug Trafficking 18 0005 Drug Sales 19 0006 Drug Possession 20 0007 DUI / HTV 21 0008 Others 22 1100 MISC HOMICIDE OFFENSE 23 1101 MURDER 24 1102 VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER 25 1103 INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER 26 1118 FETICIDE BY VEHICLE 27 1119 VOL MANSLAUGHTER OF FETUS 28 1120 RECKLESS ABANDONMENT 29 1121 FETICIDE 29 1122 ADVISED KILLING OF INFANT 30 1123 VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 31 1124 HOMICIDE BY VESSEL 32 1125 CONCEAL DEATH OF ANOTHER 33 1126 SUICIDE, ASSISTING 34 1127 MISTREATMENT OF DEAD BODY 35 1190 ATMPT MURDER 36 1191 MURDER,CONSPIRE TO COMMIT 37 1201 CRMNL ABORTION 38 1300 MISC ASSAULT/BATTERY Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 39 1301 FAMILY VIOLENCE BATTERY 40 1302 AGGRAV ASSAULT 41 1303 ATMPT AGGRAV ASSAULT 42 1304 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON 65+ 43 1305 AGGRAV BATTERY 44 1306 MISC FAMILY VIOLENCE 45 1307 TERRORIST THREATS & ACTS 46 1308 FALSE IMPRISONMENT 47 1309 FALSE IMPRIS COLOR LEGAL 48 1310 MALICIOUS CONF SANE PERS 49 1311 KIDNAPPING 50 1312 INTERFERENCE WITH CUSTODY 51 1313 ASS W/ INT TRANSMIT HIV 52 1314 AGGRAV ASSAULT PEACE OFCR 53 1315 AGGRAV BATTERY PEACE OFCR 54 1316 SIMPLE BATTERY 55 1317 RECK COND INFECTED PERSON 56 1318 INJURY BY VEHICLE 57 1320 STALKING 58 1321 AGGRAV STALKING 59 1390 ATMPT KIDNAP 60 1400 ARSON MISC 61 1401 ARSON 1ST DEGREE 62 1402 ARSON 2ND DEGREE 63 1403 ARSON 3RD DEGREE 64 1404 CRMNL POSS EXPLOSIVES 65 1405 CRMNL POSS INCENDIARY 66 1500 MISC CRIMINAL DAMAGE Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 67 1501 CRMNL DAMAGE 1ST DEGREE 68 1502 CRMNL DAMAGE 2ND DEGREE 69 1504 DAMAGE,DESTROY SECR PROP 70 1505 VANDALISM TO CHURCH ETC 71 1506 ALTER ID 72 1602 POSS TOOLS COMMIT CRIME 72 1601 BURGLARY 73 1602 POSS BURGLAR TOOLS 74 1690 ATMPT BURGLARY 75 1700 MISC FORGERY 76 1701 FORGERY 1ST DEGREE 77 1702 FORGERY 2ND DEGREE 78 1704 BAD CHECKS 79 1705 ILLEGAL USE-CREDIT CARD 80 1750 FRAUDULENT CHECKS 81 1751 THEFT CREDIT CARD 82 1752 FORGERY CREDIT CARD 83 1753 FRAUDULENT CREDIT CARD 84 1754 CRMNL POSS CREDIT CARD 85 1755 RECV GDS,SRVS FRAUD OBTND 86 1756 FINANCIAL IDENTITY FRAUD 87 1759 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRAUD 88 1760 COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY 89 1761 COMPUTER THEFT 90 1762 COMPUTER TRESPASS 91 1790 ATMPT FORGERY 92 1795 FAILR PAY NATRL PRD/CHTTL 93 1796 FRAUDULENT ACCESS COMPUTE Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 94 1799 MISC FRAUD 95 1800 VIOL GA SECURITIES ACT 96 1802 THEFT BY TAKING 97 1803 THEFT BY DECEPTION 98 1804 THEFT BY EXTORTION 99 1805 THEFT OF LOST PROPERTY 100 1806 THEFT BY REC STOLEN PROP 101 1807 THEFT OF SERVICES 102 1808 THEFT BY CONVERSION 103 1809 THEFT OF TRADE SECRET 104 1811 CONVSN PAYMNTS REAL PROPY 105 1812 ATMPT THEFT BY TAKING 106 1813 THEFT MOTORVEH OR PART 107 1814 THEFT OF LEASED PERS PROP 108 1815 THEFT BRING PROP IN STATE 109 1816 THEFT RECV PROP OUT STATE 110 1817 LIVESTOCK THEFT 111 1821 THEFT BY SHOPLIFTING 112 1880 ENTERING VEHICLE 113 1889 STEAL ALTER PUBLIC DOCS 114 1901 ROBBERY 115 1902 ARMED ROBBERY 116 1903 ROBBERY BY FORCE 117 1904 ROBBERY BY INTIMIDATION 118 1905 ROBBERY BY SUDDEN SNATCH 119 1911 HIJACKING MOTOR VEHICLE 120 1912 CARJACKING,ATTEMPTED 121 1991 ATMPT ROBBERY Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 122 1992 ATMPT ARMED ROBBERY 123 2000 MISC SEXUAL OFFENSE 124 2001 RAPE 125 2002 SODOMY 126 2003 AGGRAV SODOMY 127 2005 SEDUCTION 127 2004 BESTIALITY 128 2006 INCEST 129 2007 BIGAMY 130 2008 MARRY A BIGAMIST 131 2009 AGGRAV SEXUAL BATTERY 132 2011 SEXUAL BATTERY 133 2016 PIMPING A MINOR UNDER 18 134 2017 PANDERING BY COMPULSION 135 2018 STATUTORY RAPE 136 2019 CHILD MOLESTATION 137 2020 ENTICING CHILD-INDEC PURP 138 2021 AGGRAV CHILD MOLESTATION 139 2022 NECROPHILIA 140 2023 SEXL/ASSLT/AGN/PERS/CSTDY 141 2024 SEXUAL ASLT BY THERAPIST 142 2025 SOLICIT SODOMY FROM MINOR 142 2027 HARBOR/CONCEAL SEX OFFNDR 143 2026 SEX OFFENDER FAIL REGISTR 144 2028 SEX OFFENDER FAIL TO MOVE 145 2090 ENTICE CHILD, ATTEMPTED 146 2091 ATMPT RAPE 147 2092 ATMPT SODOMY Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 148 2093 ATMPT AGGRAV SODOMY 149 2094 ATMPT CHILD MOLESTATION 150 2095 AGG ASLT W INTNT TO RAPE 151 2096 AGGRAV CH MOLEST, ATMPT 152 2097 STATUTORY RAPE,ATMPT 153 2098 INCEST,ATMPT 154 2099 AGG SEX BATTERY ATMPT 155 2100 MISC OBSCENITY 156 2101 DISTRIBUTING OBSCENE MAT 157 2102 DISTR MAT DEPICT NUDITY 157 2110 PROV SEX MATER TO MINORS 158 2112 EXHIB SEX SHOWS TO MINORS 159 2200 MISC PUBLIC ORDER 160 2202 INSURRECTION 161 2203 INCITING TO INSURRECTION 162 2204 ADVOC OVERTHROW OF GOVT 163 2205 FALSE SWEARNG WRITTN STMT 164 2300 ABUSE OF GOVT OFFICE 165 2301 BRIBERY GOVT OFFICER 166 2302 VIOL OATH PUBLIC OFFCR 167 2305 INFLUENCE GOVT OFFICIAL 168 2306 GOVT OFFCL SELL TO GOVT 169 2307 DEFRAUDING STATE 170 2308 CONSPIRE RESTRAIN FREE 171 2311 FALSE CERTIFICATES 172 2313 INFLUENCING WITNESS 173 2314 OBSTR OF LAW ENF OFFICER 174 2315 TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 175 2316 FLEEING/ELUDING POLICE 176 2400 MISC JUDICIAL PROCEEDING 177 2401 PERJURY 178 2402 FALSE SWEARING 179 2403 SUBORNATION OF PERJURY 180 2404 IMPERSONATION 181 2405 IMPERSONATING OFFICER 182 2406 BARRATRY 183 2407 EMBRACERY 184 2408 FALSE STATEMENTS GOVT 185 2411 IMPERSNTNG IN LEGAL PROCD 186 2501 ESCAPE 187 2504 COMPOUNDING A CRIME 187 2502 AIDING ESCAPE 188 2503 HINDERING APPREH OR PUN 189 2507 MUTINY IN PENAL INST 190 2508 INSTIGATING MUTINY 191 2511 BAIL JUMPING 192 2590 ATMPT ESCAPE 193 2609 FALSE PUBLIC ALARM 194 2614 INTERFERE ELECTRONIC DVCE 194 2613 CRMNL INTERFERE GOVT PROP 195 2703 COMMERICAL GAMBLING 196 2706 COMMUNICATING GAMBL INFO 197 2711 BRIBERY OF CONTESTANT 198 2712 SOLICIT/ACCEPTING BRIBE 199 2717 GAMBLING ACT ON BUSINESS 200 2718 DOGFIGHTING Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 201 2730 LOTTERY VIOLATION 202 2751 BUS HIJACKING 203 2752 BOARDING BUS W/CONCLD WPN 204 2761 REMOVAL BAGGAGE,CARGO ETC 205 2801 CRUELTY TO CHILDREN 206 2803 MANUFACT METH NEAR CHILD 207 2811 CRUELTY TO ELDER PERSON 207 2812 ABUSE,NEGLECT ELDER/DISAB 208 2843 SEX EXPLOITATION CHILD 209 2852 ABANDONMENT OF CHILD 210 2854 CNTRBTNG DELINQENCY MINOR 211 2900 MISC WEAPON/EXPLOSIVE OFF 212 2901 CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON 213 2903 CARRY PISTL WITHOUT LICNS 214 2904 ALTER PISTL LICENSE 215 2906 MACHINE GUN ACTIVITIES 216 2910 POSS OF FIREARM DUR CRIME 217 2911 POSS KNIFE DURING CRIME 218 2912 POSS OF CERTAIN WEAPONS 219 2913 POSS FIREARM 1ST OFFENDER 220 2914 POSS FIREARM CONVCT FELON 221 2915 CARRY WEAPON AT SCHOOL 222 2963 GUARD LINE W/WEAPON/DRUGS 223 2965 POSS WPN,DRUGS BY PRISNR 224 2967 DESTROY/INJUR POLICE DOG 225 2970 MISUSE FIREARM HUNTING 226 2971 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 227 2972 AGGRAV CRUELTY TO ANIMALS Georgia Department of Corrections Office of Planning and Analysis Prisoner Length of Stay (CY) Report New Court Commitments Only Time Served by Departing Inmates Who Were New Court Commitments Produced for General Distribution 09/01/2021 Table of Contents Page Crime Code & Name 228 3000 MISC INVASION OF PRIVACY 229 3001 EAVESDROP & SURVEILLANCE 230 3002 PEEPING TOM 231 3404 RACKETEERING 232 4001 S/D NARCOTICS OPIATES 233 4002 S/D DEP STIM CNTRF DRUGS 234 4003 S/D OF LSD 235 4004 S/D OF MARIJUANA 236 4005 S/D OF ALCOHOLIC INTOX 237 4006 POSS NARCOTICS OPIATES 238 4007 POSS DEP STIM CNTRF DRUGS 239 4008 POSS OF LSD 240 4009 POSS OF MARIJUANA 241 4010 ILLEGAL POSS/MANF LIQUOR 242 4011 ILLEGAL ATTM TO OBT DRUGS 243 4012 VIOL GA CNTRL SBST ACT 244 4013 VIOL DNGROUS DRGS ACT 245 4014 UNLWFL MFG/DEL/DIST N-C S 246 4016 POSS DRUG RELATED MATRL 247 4017 S/D CONT SUB PUBLIC 248 4018 S/D CONT SUB SCHOOL 249 4021 S/D COCAINE 250 4022 POSS OF COCAINE 251 4030 POSS EPHEDRINE 252 4031
Recommended publications
  • Arkansas Sentencing Commission Pursuant to A

    Arkansas Sentencing Commission Pursuant to A

    Arkansas Impact Assessment for HB1577 Sentencing Sponsored by Representative Hammer Commission Subtitle CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF ARSON; AND CONCERNING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ARSON. Impact Summary1 Minimal, affecting fewer than ten offenders per year. Change from current law2 Amends Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-38-301, Arson, by adding a new course of conduct by which a person can commit this offense. Under the proposed bill, a person commits arson if he or she starts a fire or causes an explosion with the purpose of destroying or otherwise damaging an area of real property being used for the commercial growth of timber or other agricultural product if the timber or other agricultural produced is destroyed or made commercially non-viable and the value of the destroyed or commercially non-viable timber or other agricultural product is more than five thousand dollars ($5,000). The other courses of conduct constituting arson remain intact. Under the proposed bill, this new course of conduct would constitute a Class B felony. See attached for a copy of A.C.A. § 5-38-301, as currently written. The proposed bill also amends the statute of limitations for arson. Under current law, A.C.A. § 5-1-109, the statute of limitations for arson is either: one (1) year (for misdemeanors), three (3) years (for Class B, C, and D felonies), or six (6) years (for Class Y and A felonies). The proposed bill would extend the statute of limitations to ten (10) years if the arson was committed by burning an area of real property being used for the growth of timber or other agricultural product and rendering more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) worth of timber or other agricultural product destroyed or commercially nonviable.
  • Toxic Trespass: Lead Us Not Into Litigation

    Toxic Trespass: Lead Us Not Into Litigation

    toxic trespass: lead us not into litigation 44 by Steven N. Geise and Hollis R. Peterson Since the chemical revolution began to unfold in the 1950s, people have ingested hundreds of toxic substances—knowingly or not. Our bodies carry chemicals found in the products and processes we use or to which we are exposed. Many toxins take up residence in body fat, where they may remain for decades; others are absorbed into the body and quickly metabolized and excreted. Winds and water currents can carry persistent chemicals thousands of miles until they find a home in our blood- streams. Just by living in an industrialized society, we all carry a sampling of the chem- ical cocktail created by our surroundings. As modern science advances, biomonitor- ing data is able to detect the presence of specific toxins. But science cannot always inform us about how the chemi- cals were introduced, how long they have been there, or whether they pose a legiti- mate health risk. If not for recent develop- ments in detection, we might never know that our bodies harbor such chemicals. 55 Nevertheless, creative litigants are forcing courts to deal with (“CELDF”) has proposed a strict-liability model ordinance to a new wave of toxic tort claims seeking to make chemicals local legislators that recognizes “that it is an inviolate, funda- in a person’s bloodstream an actionable offense. This cause mental, and inalienable right of each person … to be free from of action is known as “toxic trespass.” Courts must decide involuntary invasions of their bodies by corporate chemicals.” whether the mere presence of chemicals in an individual Corporate Chemical Trespass Ordinance, http://www.celdf.org/ gives rise to civil liability when the individual has no diag- Ordinances/CorporateChemicalTrespassOrdinance/tabid/257/ nosed injury and the causal link between the exposure and Default.aspx (web sites last visited February 6, 2009).
  • Nowhere to Go and Chose to Stay: Using the Tort of False

    Nowhere to Go and Chose to Stay: Using the Tort of False

    COMMENTS "NOWHERE TO GO AND CHOSE TO STAY": USING THE TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT TO REDRESS INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT OF THE ELDERLY IN NURSING HOMES AND HOSPITALS CATHRAEL KAZINt INTRODUCTION As a nation, we are often sentimental about the old in the abstract but contemptuous of them in practice.' Our ambivalence about the elderly can be seen at every point on a wide spectrum, ranging from humor to discrimination in housing and employment. Inadequate health care2 and deplorable conditions in many of the nation's nursing homes3 are among the most obvious manifestations of our collective t A.B. 1976, Smith College; Ph.D. 1983, Cornell University; J.D. Candidate 1989, University of Pennsylvania. 1 In many ways, America's attitude toward its elderly mirrors its attitude toward its young: There is an enormous gap between the ideology of care and actual support and resources. The widespread incidence of child abuse has been increasingly acknowl- edged and documented, and, in part as a consequence, abuse of the elderly has begun to be more fully recognized and documented. Interestingly, legislation aimed at curbing abuse of the elderly has been modeled on anti-child abuse legislation. See Comment, A Critical Analysis: The Patient Abuse Provisions of the Missouri Omnibus Nursing Home Act, 24 ST. Louis U.L.J. 713, 713 (1981) (comparing the Missouri Omnibus Nursing Home Act, Mo. REv. STAT. §§ 198.003 to 198.186 (Supp. 1980) with the Missouri Child Abuse Statute, Mo. REV. STAT. §§ 210.110 to 210.165 (1978)). 2 "Therapeutic nihilism" pervades institutionalized health care for the elderly and makes it more likely that they will receive only custodial care rather than treatment.
  • Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons Or Abused Children? Marc A

    Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons Or Abused Children? Marc A

    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 40 | Number 4 Article 3 1-1-2000 Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children? Marc A. Franklin Matthew loP eger Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc A. Franklin and Matthew Ploeger, Symposium, Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children?, 40 Santa Clara L. Rev. 991 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol40/iss4/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OF RESCUE AND REPORT: SHOULD TORT LAW IMPOSE A DUTY TO HELP ENDANGERED PERSONS OR ABUSED CHILDREN? Marc A. Franklin* & Matthew Ploeger** I. INTRODUCTION This essay explores whether a civil duty to rescue' should be imposed on a person who has the apparent ability to save another person or to prevent that person from entering a po- sition of peril.2 It also examines the related question of * Frederick I. Richman Professor, Stanford Law School. LL.B., Cornell Law School; A.B., Cornell University. A version of this essay was presented at the Santa Clara Law Review Symposium, Law, Ethics, and the Good Samari- tan, held at Santa Clara University School of Law on March 24, 2000.
  • Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits Defendant Are at Fault

    Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits Defendant Are at Fault

    Using Comparative Fault to Replace the All-or-Nothing Lottery Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits in Which Both Plaintiff and Defendant Are at Fault Gail D. Hollister* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 122 II. REASONS FOR USING COMPARATIVE FAULT IN INTENTIONAL TORT CASES ............................................ 127 III. JUSTIFICATIONS OFFERED TO SUPPORT THE BLANKET PROHI- BITION ON THE USE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN INTEN- TIONAL TORT CASES ..................................... 132 A. Plaintiff's Fault Must Be Ignored to Circumvent the Harsh Results Imposed by Contributory Negli- gence ......................................... 132 B. Comparative Negligence Statutes Prohibit the Use of Comparative Fault in Intentional Tort Cases.. 134 C. Intent and Negligence Are Different in Kind and Thus Cannot Be Compared ..................... 135 1. Do Negligence and Intent Differ in Kind? .. 136 2. Do Differences in Kind Mandate Different R esults? .... 141 D. Plaintiff Is Entitled to Full Compensation....... 143 E. Plaintiff Has No Duty to Act Reasonably to Avoid H arm ......................................... 143 F. Plaintiff's Fault Cannot Be a Proximate Cause of H er Injury .................................... 144 G. The Need to Punish Defendant Precludes the Use of Comparative Fault .......................... 145 * Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University. B.S., University of Wisconsin, 1967; J.D., Fordham University School of Law, 1970. The author would like to thank Professors Helen Hadjiyannakis Bender, Robert M. Byrn, and Ludwik A. Teclaff for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 46:121 H. The Need to Deter Substandard Conduct Makes Comparative Fault Undesirable................. 146 L Victim Compensation Militates Against the Use of Comparative Fault ............................ 149 IV. WHEN COMPARATIVE FAULT SHOULD BE USED IN INTEN- TIONAL TORT CASES ................................
  • False Imprisonment, Result Oriented

    False Imprisonment, Result Oriented

    If you have questions or would like further information regarding False Imprisonment, Result Oriented. Success Driven. please contact: www.querrey.com® Tim Rabel 312-540-7074 © 2007 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. [email protected] ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER VII INTENTIONAL TORTS & DEFAMATION B. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 1. Basic Law The tort of false imprisonment is defined as “an unlawful restraint of an individual's personal liberty or freedom of locomotion.” Toothman v. Hardee’s Food Sys., 304 Ill. App. 3d 521 (5th Dist. 1999). The essential elements of a cause of action for false imprisonment are that: (1) The plaintiff was restrained by the defendant; and (2) The defendant acted without having reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff committed an offense. Reynolds v. Menard, Inc., 365 Ill. App. 3d 812 (1st Dist. 2006); Toothman v. Hardee's Food Sys., 304 Ill. App. 3d 521 (5th Dist. 1999). The individual must be aware of the confinement (Restatement (Second) of Torts, (§ 35), and mere incidental confinement without intent does not cause false imprisonment. Hanna v. Marshall Field & Co., 279 Ill. App. 3d 784 (1st Dist. 1996). 2. Analysis The confinement must be complete. Prosser, Torts, Section 11 at 47 (5th ed. 1984). A false imprisonment does not occur, for example, when one individual locks a young, athletic person in a room with an open window at a height of four feet from the ground outside. Id. Further, confinement may be by physical force, physical barrier, or threat of physical force. An unlawful restraint may be effected by words alone, by acts alone, or both.
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ______

    United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ______

    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2274 ___________________________ Stuart Wright lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee John Clark; Walter R. Bradley, in his official capacity as the United States Marshal for the District of Kansas; Sean Franklin, in his official capacity as a Deputy United States Marshal and in his individual capacity; Deputy United States Marshals 1 - 10, in their official and individual capacities (names unknown at this time); Stacia A. Hylton, in her official capacity; Christopher Wallace, in his official capacity as a Deputy United States Marshal and in his individual capacity lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 16, 2018 Filed: June 13, 2018 ____________ Before WOLLMAN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ Appellate Case: 17-2274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Entry ID: 4672148 SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. In the third iteration of this unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Plaintiff Stuart Wright (“Wright”) appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to the United States and the Deputy U.S. Marshals in their individual and official capacities on Wright’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the “FTCA”). Wright argues that the district court erred when it found there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that, as a matter of law, the Marshals were not liable to him under the FTCA for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and assault and battery. We disagree and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
  • Statutes of Limitation for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children (Last Updated August 2012)

    Statutes of Limitation for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children (Last Updated August 2012)

    Statutes of Limitation for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children (last updated August 2012) This compilation includes statutes that establish, toll, extend, or eliminate time limitations for charging criminal offenses relating specifically to child victims. Every statute included either specifically mentions child victims or makes reference to a statute that does. This is not a statutory compilation of all criminal statute of limitations laws. General statutes of limitations that apply to all crimes without specific reference to the age of the victim or children as a class of victims are omitted. Please feel free to contact NDAA for help in ensuring compliance with all of your jurisdiction’s applicable statutes of limitation. Table of Contents: TABLE OF CONTENTS:............................................................................................................................................... 1 ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 ALA. CODE § 15-3-5 (2012). Offenses having no limitation.....................................................................................4 ALASKA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 ALASKA STAT. § 12.10.010 (2012). General time limitations...................................................................................4
  • Immigration Law Advisor

    Immigration Law Advisor

    U.S. Department of Justice http://eoir-vll/lib_index.html Executive Office for Immigration Review Published since 2007 Immigration Law Advisor October 2011 A Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol. 5 No. 9 Relief in Their Own Right: Asylum for In this issue... the Children of Victims of Coercive Page 1: Feature Article: Population Control Policies Relief in Their Own Right: Asylum for the Children . Page 4: In Tribute By Elizabeth Donnelly Page 5: Federal Court Activity Introduction Page 6: The Heart of Silva-Trevino . Page 11: BIA Precedent Decisions ection 601(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub. L. No. 104-208, Page 13: Regulatory Update S110 Stat 3009-586, 3009-689, which was codified at 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), defines four classes of refugees against whom enforcement of a coercive population The Immigration Law Advisor is a control program constitutes persecution on account of a political opinion: professional newsletter of the Executive Office for Immigration Review 1. Persons who have been forced to abort a pregnancy; (“EOIR”) that is intended solely as an 2. Persons who have been forced to undergo involuntary educational resource to disseminate sterilization; information on developments in immigration law pertinent to the 3. Persons who have been persecuted for failure or refusal to Immigration Courts and the Board undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive of Immigration Appeals. Any views population control program; and expressed are those of the authors and 4.
  • Consent and Self Defense and Battery

    Consent and Self Defense and Battery

    Consent And Self Defense And Battery Derron boodle his eumelanin entreats tropologically or flipping after Vaughan strickles and jettisons imprudently, giggliest and theodicean. Fractional and pickier Silas uprear her matchlessness hook-up or diversify indelibly. Sometimes impaired Yale exhilarating her swearer dash, but dumpier Witty outguess stumpily or sectionalize memorably. Because of intent offenses contained certain categories of harmful or defense and consent. It with battery defense? It is both good law without good line that database may is, another procedure have with legal authority to gear on behalf of research first person. Duncan to deal with a very sensitive issue that my daughter had. Anyone facing assault and battery charges could be facing jail or prison time, they can choose to waive such an interest by consenting to conduct that causes them physical harm. It will demonstrate that analysis of effectiveness must also expressly consider societal interests both in allowing sports to flourish and in limiting violence. If funny are multiple witnesses saying a same scope or video of the nose, you may greatly improve your chances of capacity at trial that it may jolt you goes a resolution. But each slope of severe legal eagles went memories and knowing the tongue of office. Moreover, Orange County, which otherwise create problems down through line. Generally not count on a patient alleging either an offensive bodily injury and gets into a distinction between people. What constitutes a deadly weapon, the simple act of touching someone against their will is technically a battery. The picture found adjust the verdict had been unreasonable.
  • Fraud Section Year in Review 2018

    Fraud Section Year in Review 2018

    United States Department of Justice | Criminal Division | Fraud Section FRAUD SECTION YEAR IN REVIEW 2018 Fraud Section Webpages: Fraud Section: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act Health Care Fraud: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/health-care-fraud-unit Securities & Financial Fraud: http://www.justice.gov/criminal1 -fraud/securities-and-financial-fraud-unit Strategy, Policy, & Training: http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/strategy-policy-and-training-unit Welcome to the Fraud Section The Fraud Section is a national leader in the Department of Justice’s fight against economic crime. As the Department’s office with the largest number of white-collar prosecutors, the Fraud Section combats financial crime, foreign bribery offenses, and complex health care fraud schemes in federal courts around the country, routinely charging and resolving cases of both national and international significance and prominence. Located in Washington, D.C., the Fraud Section employs approximately 150 prosecutors, 20 federal support staff, and has roughly 100 contract support staff. These dedicated personnel support the Fraud Section’s three litigating units – the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit, the Health Care Fraud (HCF) Unit, and the Securities & Financial Fraud (SFF) Unit – in addition to the Strategy, Policy & Training (SPT) Unit and the Administration & Management Unit. The FCPA Unit has primary jurisdiction among Department components in prosecuting FCPA matters and in assisting to develop FCPA enforcement policy. The HCF Unit identifies and responds to emerging health care fraud and opioid trends across the country, and stands up 14 Health Care Fraud Strike Forces operating in 23 federal judicial districts across the United States.1 The SFF Unit has unrivaled expertise in corporate fraud matters and in parallel investigations with domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies and regulators.
  • In the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division

    In the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division

    Case 3:06-cv-00640-L Document 61 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 10 PageID 476 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CLINT GREGG,§ § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-0640-L § TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY,§ § Defendant. § AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court hereby vacates its Memorandum Opinion and Order filed March 20, 2008, and issues this Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order. The court issues the Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order to correct several typographical errors in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 20, 2008. The substance of the earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order is not changed, and the rulings made by the court in it are binding on the parties. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 5, 2007. After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply, appendices, briefs, and applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I. Procedural and Factual Background Clint Gregg (“Plaintiff” or “Gregg”) filed this action against Tractor Supply Company (“Defendant” or “TSC”) and Jill Cottle (“Cottle”)* on February 24, 2006 in County Court at Law, Number 1, Ellis County, Texas. Gregg, an employee of TSC at the time of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, contends that TSC intentionally and wrongfully accused him of stealing a chop *Cottle was dismissed from the action on October 26, 2006, because Plaintiff failed to effect service on her as ordered by the court. Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1 Case 3:06-cv-00640-L Document 61 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 10 PageID 477 saw, falsely and intentionally reported it to police, which caused him to be falsely arrested for theft.