DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Essays on Judicial Behavior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Essays on Judicial Behavior UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Essays on Judicial Behavior Under Institutional Constraint A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Jeremy Daniel Horowitz Committee in Charge: Professor Gary Jacobson, Chair Professor Michael Bailey Professor James Fowler Professor Samuel Kernell Professor David Schkade Professor John Skrentny 2015 © Jeremy Daniel Horowitz, 2015 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Jeremy Daniel Horowitz is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2015 iii DEDICATION I want to thank everyone who gave so generously of their time to provide advice and guidance on portions of this dissertation -- especially Gary Jacobson and Mike Bailey. Thanks also to Judges Nora Manella and Raymond Fisher, wonderful mentors and phenomenal jurists who first set me on the path to studying how and why judges do what they do. This dissertation is dedicated to my family, with my deepest appreciation for their unwavering support. And particularly to Nora, for her steadfast love and encouragement, and to Aaron, Gabe and Zach, for making it all worthwhile. Dad’s done, guys. Let’s go play. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ............................................................................................................... iii Dedication ...................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... v List of Figures ............................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................... viii Vita ................................................................................................................................ ix Abstract of the Dissertation ............................................................................................ x INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 The Politics of Non-Precedential Opinions: Analyzing the Effects of Dissents from Denial of Rehearing En Banc in the Certiorari Process ....................................................................... 13 I. Introduction ................................................................................................ 14 II. DDRs: The Clearest Expression of Judicial Preferences ........................... 18 III. Ideology and the DDR-Certiorari Link ...................................................... 20 IV. Measures and Data ..................................................................................... 21 A. Litigant Behavior ............................................................................ 22 B. Supreme Court Interpretation of DDRs .......................................... 26 C. Supreme Court Outcomes in DDR Cases ....................................... 37 V. Discussion ................................................................................................... 41 VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 44 CHAPTER 2 Split Circuits: Analyzing Polarization on the U.S. Courts of Appeals Using Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Banc Coalition Data ...... 49 I. Introduction ................................................................................................ 51 II. Competing Theories of the Rise of Judicial Polarization ........................... 54 III. DDRs: An Increasingly Common Means of Expressing Judicial Preference ...................................................................................... 58 IV. Constructing Measures of DDR Ideology .................................................. 62 V. Polarization in the Circuits? ....................................................................... 69 VI. Assessing Polarization Causes via Presidential Cohort-Based Analysis ... 75 A. Marshalling and Assessing Presidential Cohort Evidence ............. 76 v B. Applying the Cohort-Based Results to the Polarization Hypotheses ..................................................................................... 90 VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 94 CHAPTER 3 Legitimacy, Ideology and the Use of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court ................................................................................................... 104 I. Court Legitimacy and the Importance of Precedent ................................. 107 II. Using Precedent to Maintain Legitimacy ................................................. 113 III. Measuring Precedent Centrality, Justice Ideology and Other Relevant Concepts .................................................................................... 118 A. Measuring Precedent Centrality: The Hub Score ......................... 119 B. Measuring Justice Ideology and Court Ideological Movement .... 129 C. Measuring Salience, Contentiousness and Separation-of- Powers Implications ..................................................................... 132 D. Other Case-Specific Elements ...................................................... 136 IV. Assessing Legitimacy and Precedent Centrality: Testing the Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 140 A. The Effects of an Ideological Shift ............................................... 140 B. What Role Does Ideology Play? ................................................... 144 C. The Effect of Contentiousness and Salience ................................ 146 D. Separation-of-Powers Concerns ................................................... 148 V. The Quest for Legitimacy: A Constraining Force?: ................................. 150 Appendix: Calculation of the Hub Scores ............................................................ 156 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 165 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Mean DDR coalition/panel author GHP differential when judge participates in DDR, by circuit (minimum: 5 DDR coalitions) ............ 70 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1a: Certiorari petition rates by party of DDR author, by Supreme Court era ................................................................................ 23 Table 1-1b: Certiorari petition rates by party of DDR author, by circuit ................ 24 Table 1-2: Rate of certiorari grant by party of DDR author .................................. 28 Table 1-3: Logistic regression model of factors affecting certiorari decision -- DDR cases .......................................................................... 33 Table 1-4: Logistic regression model of factors affecting certiorari decision -- non-DDR cases ................................................................... 36 Table 1-5: Rate of reversal/vacation by party of DDR author ............................... 40 Table 2-1: Possible explanations for judicial polarization ..................................... 58 Table 2-2: Distribution of concurrences in DDRs ................................................. 60 Table 2-3: Largest differences between judge’s GHP and DDR coalition/ panel author GHP gap (minimum: 5 DDR coalitions) ......................... 69 Table 2-4: Regression results for coalition partners, targets and partner/target gap, by judge ........................................................................................ 73 Table 2-5: Frequency of DDR participation by presidential cohort ...................... 77 Table 2-6: DDR participation per judge-year, by presidential cohort and decade ................................................................................................... 78 Table 2-7: Average DDR coalition GHP score, by presidential cohort and decade ................................................................................................... 81 Table 2-8: Mean panel author GHP, by DDR participant presidential cohort and decade ............................................................................................ 83 Table 2-9: Mean coalition partner/panel author ideology gap, by DDR participant’s presidential cohort and decade ........................................ 85 Table 2-10: Presidential cohort, circuit and decade effects on DDR participation polarization ...................................................................... 87 Table 3-1: Mean hub score by justice, 1953-2004 ............................................... 124 Table 3-2: Embeddedness scores by issue area ................................................... 137 Table 3-3: Ideological shift and precedent strength ............................................. 141 Table 3-4: Opinion author/majority coalition ideology effect on precedent strength ............................................................................................... 145 Table 3-5: Effect of variable changes on hub score percentile ranks .................. 147 Table 3-6: Coordinate branches and precedent strength ...................................... 149 viii VITA 1994 Artium Baccalaureus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court
    Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE DIAL CORPORATION, et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-06802-WHP Individually and on behalf of Similarly Situated Companies, Plaintiffs, v. NEWS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF STEVEN F. BENZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 17 I, Steven F. Benz, declare as follows: 1. I submit this declaration in support of preliminary approval of the settlement reached on behalf of the certified Class and Defendants News Corporation, News America, Inc., News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C., and News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. (collectively, “Defendants”). 2. I am a partner with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. (“Kellogg Huber”), which is Co-Lead Counsel for the Class of plaintiffs certified by the Court on June 18, 2015. I am a member of good standing of the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota bars, and am admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration. I became involved in this case at its inception in 2011 and am closely familiar with all aspects of this case since that time. 3. Both Kellogg Huber and I personally have significant experience with antitrust litigation and class actions, including settlements thereof. Copies of my firm’s resume and my personal profile are annexed to this declaration as Exhibit A.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Opinion Writing: Gerald Lebovits
    JUDICIAL OPINION WRITING For State Tax Judges October 12, 2018 Chicago, Illinois GERALD LEBOVITS Acting Justice, NYS Supreme Court Adjunct Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law Judicial Opinion Writing For State Tax Judges October 12, 2018 By: Gerald Lebovits Table of Contents Gerald Lebovits, Alifya V. Curtin & Lisa Solomon, Ethical Judicial Opinion Writing, 21 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 237 (2008).................................................................................... A Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part I, 78 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Nov./Dec. 2006) ................................................................................. B Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part II, 79 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Jan. 2007) ........................................................................................... C Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part III, 79 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Feb. 2007)........................................................................................... D Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Legal-Writing Ethics—Part I, 77 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Oct. 2005) ........................................................................................... E Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Legal-Writing Ethics—Part II, 77 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Nov./Dec. 2005) ................................................................................. F Gerald
    [Show full text]
  • United States Courts for the First Circuit 2014 Annual Report
    UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 2014 ANNUAL REPORT United States Courts for the First Circuit 2014 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword. ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Structure of the Federal Judiciary ................................................................................................... 2 Narrative Reports of the Units of the Court of Appeals Clerk's Office ..................................................................................................................... 4 Office of the Staff Attorneys ............................................................................................... 5 Civil Appeals Management Program .................................................................................. 5 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ................................................................................................ 7 Libraries of the First Circuit ................................................................................................ 7 Narrative Reports of the Districts District of Maine .............................................................................................................. 11 District of Massachusetts ................................................................................................. 17 District of New Hampshire .............................................................................................. 24 District of Puerto Rico
    [Show full text]
  • Cool & Unusual Advocates
    The The INSIDE Law School Practice Makes Perfect: Clinical training gives students The a professional edge. The Family Guy: One professor | T insists that the legal system can HE HE better serve children. Nine maga Lawthe magazine of the new yorkSchool university school of law • autumn 2007 experts debate his ideas. ZI From understanding contract principles to N “ E deciphering federal, state, and local codes OF T and ordinances to negotiating with various HE N parties, the skills I gained during my years Y EW O at the NYU School of Law were invaluable RK in the business world. UN ” IVERSI In 2005, Deborah Im ’04 took time off to pursue a dream: T She opened a “cupcakery” in Berkeley, California, to rave S Y reviews. When she sold the business to practice law again, C H she remembered the Law School with a generous donation. OO L L Our $400 million campaign was launched with another OF L goal: to increase participation by 50 percent. Members A of every class are doing their part to make this happen. W You should know that giving any amount counts. Meeting or surpassing our participation goal would be, well, icing on the cake. Please call (212) 998-6061 or visit us at https://nyulaw.publishingconcepts.com/giving. Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Buffalo, NY Office of Development and Alumni Relations Permit No. 559 161 Avenue of the Americas, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10013-1205 autumn 2007, volume X volume 2007, autumn vii Cool & Unusual Advocates Anthony Amsterdam and Bryan Stevenson reveal what compels them to devote their lives to saving the condemned.
    [Show full text]
  • Ucla Law Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” Congratulations to the Ucla School of Law Alumni Named California “Rising Stars” in 2013
    FALL PRESORTED FIRST CLASS MAIL 2013 US POSTAGE 405 Hilgard Avenue PAID VOL. UCLA Box 951476 36 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 NO. 1 CLINICALLY PROVEN Building on UCLA Law’s Leadership in Hands-on Skills Training MEDICAL-LEGAL PARTNERSHIP Grant Establishes Innovative New Program WILLIAms INstItutE GIFT $5.5 Million Gift Will Support the Institute’s Growth 219405_Cover_r2.indd 1 9/14/2013 12:43:31 PM contents FALL 2013 VOL. 36 NO. 1 © 2013 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS BOX 951476 | LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1476 Rachel F. Moran UCLA LAW BOArd OF ADVISORS 52 Dean and Michael J. Connell Nelson Rising ’67, Chair Distinguished Professor of Law Nancy L. Abell ’79 Lauri L. Gavel James D. C. Barrall ’75 Executive Director of Jonathan F. Chait ’75 Communications Melanie K. Cook ’78 David J. Epstein ’64 EDITORS David W. Fleming ’59 Lauri L. Gavel Richard I. Gilchrist ’71 53 54 Executive Director of Arthur N. Greenberg ’52 Communications Bernard A. Greenberg ’58 Antonia Hernandez ’74 WILLIAMS INSTITUTE GIFT FUNDS STUDENT RESNICK PROGRAM Sara Rouche Margarita Paláu Hernández ’85 Communications Officer RECEIVES MAJOR GIFT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR FOOD LAW Joseph K. Kornwasser ’72 Stewart C. Kwoh ’74 AND POLICY A $5.5 million gift from Gift from Justice Joan DESIGN Victor B. MacFarlane ’78 Chuck Williams will Dempsey Klein ’54 and First-of-its-kind program Rebekah Albrecht Michael T. Masin ’69 Contributing Graphic Designer Alicia Miñana de Lovelace ’87 support the institute’s Conrad Lee Klein funds established to help Frank Lopez Wendy Munger ’77 growth and leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • North Atlantic Regional Business Law Association
    Published by Husson University Bangor, Maine For the NORTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL BUSINESS LAW ASSOCIATION EDITORS IN CHIEF William B. Read Husson University Marie E. Hansen Husson University BOARD OF EDITORS Robert C. Bird Carter H. Manny University of Connecticut University of Southern Maine Gerald R. Ferrera Christine N. O’Brien Bentley University Boston College Stephanie M. Greene Jason H. Peterson Boston College Suffolk University William E. Greenspan Lucille M. Ponte University of Bridgeport Florida Coastal School of Law Anne-Marie G. Hakstian Margo E.K. Reder Salem State College Boston College Chet Hickox Patricia Q. Robertson University of Rhode Island Arkansas State University Stephen D. Lichtenstein David Silverstein Bentley University Suffolk University Gerald A. Madek David P. Twomey Bentley University Boston College i GUIDELINES FOR 2012 Papers presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting and Conference will be considered for publication in the Business Law Review. In order to permit blind peer refereeing of manuscripts, papers must not identify the author or the author’s institutional affiliation. A removable cover page should contain the title, the author’s name, affiliation, and address. If you are presenting a paper and would like to have it considered for publication, you must submit two clean copies, no later than March 26, 2012 to: Professor William B. Read Husson University 1 College Circle Bangor, Maine 04401 The Board of Editors of the Business Law Review will judge each paper on its scholarly contribution, research quality, topic interest (related to business law or the legal environment of business) writing quality, and readiness for publication. Please note that, although you are welcome to present papers relating to teaching business law, those papers will not be eligible for publication in the Business Law Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD Fall, 2011 Article and Essay
    8 LJALWD 239 Page 1 8 Legal Comm. & Rhetoric: JALWD 239 Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD Fall, 2011 Article and Essay *239 JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS A Bibliography Mary Dunnewold, Beth Honetschlager, Brenda Tofte [FNa1] Copyright © 2011 by the Association of Legal Writing Directors; Mary Dunnewold, Beth Honetschlager, Brenda Tofte WESTLAW LAWPRAC INDEX ADV -- Advocacy & Lawyering Skills Introduction Approximately 3,000 judicial clerkships are filled each year by new law school graduates. [FN1] Most law schools also offer judicial internship or externship courses, allowing students to earn academic credit for work performed as judicial clerks. [FN2] These courses often involve a classroom component in which students read about and discuss judicial decision-making, the judge's and clerk's roles, judicial writing, and other relevant top- ics. Recognizing the value of working behind the scenes in a judge's chambers, some law students even seek out and obtain volunteer positions as judicial clerks. [FN3] A wide variety of materials about judicial clerkships is available in bar journals, law reviews, and books, and on relevant web sites. This bibliography brings together the more recent of these materials and categorizes them by topic. The resulting compilation should be useful to academic professionals planning judicial-clerkship classes or externship experiences, law students contemplating judicial-clerkship positions and wanting to know more, and recent law school graduates preparing to enter judicial clerkships. [FN4] *240 We limited the bibliography to materials published since 1980 for two reasons. First, reliance on judi- cial clerks has exploded since the 1960s, [FN5] and advice to clerks may have changed as clerkship positions have become both more competitive and more available.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S11247
    November 18, 2002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11247 EXECUTIVE SESSION me give an example: Anthony Porter. DNA testing is an extraordinary tool f Anthony Porter was 2 days from execu- for uncovering the truth, whatever the tion in 1998 when he was exonerated truth may be. It is the fingerprint of NOMINATION OF DENNIS W. and released from prison. Why? Not be- the 21st Century. Prosecutors across SHEDD, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO cause the criminal justice system the country rightly use it to prove BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE worked. He was exonerated and re- guilt. By the same token, it should also FOURTH CIRCUIT leased because a class of journalism be used to do what it is equally sci- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under students, who had taken on an inves- entifically reliable to do: to establish the previous order, the Senate will now tigation of his case, found that did he innocence. go into executive session to proceed to not commit the crime. They also found Just like fingerprints, in many the consideration of Executive Order the real killer. A group of students crimes there are no fingerprints; in No. 1178, which the clerk will report. from a journalism class did what many crimes there is no DNA evidence. The legislative clerk read the nomi- should have been done by the criminal Where there is DNA evidence, it can nation of Dennis W. Shedd, of South justice system in the first place. show us conclusively, even years after Carolina, to be United States Circuit Ray Krone spent 10 years in prison.
    [Show full text]
  • © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works. 1
    In 'bizarre' decision, 1st Circuit won't allow Harvard prof to step in for Title IX defendant 11/1/19 Alison Frankel's On The Case 20:39:00 Alison Frankel's On The Case Copyright (c) 2019 Thomson Reuters November 1, 2019 In 'bizarre' decision, 1st Circuit won't allow Harvard prof to step in for Title IX defendant Update: Late Friday afternoon, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals changed its mind and agreed to allow Harvard professor Jeannie Suk Gerson to appear in the case for John Doe. The order was entered without explanation by Judges Sandra Lynch, Michael Boudin and Kermit Lipez will hear arguments in Doe's case on Tuesday. Last week, the Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen filed a motion at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to appear for a Boston College student who asserts the college improperly suspended him after denying him due process in its investigation of a sexual assault allegation. What's happened since then is just plain "bizarre," in the words of ethics expert Charles Wolfram, the Cornell law professor. Gersen is well-known as an expert in Title IX cases and this one promised to be significant. U.S. District Judge Donald Woodlock of Boston had granted a motion by the student, identified only as John Doe, for a preliminary motion to block his suspension. BC's lawyers at Locke Lord contended that the trial judge erroneously applied precedent that requires public universities allow real-time cross-examination of witnesses to a case involving a private college.
    [Show full text]
  • The Symposium Program Is Here
    Florida International University College of Law Cure, Botch or Opiate? Law, Politics, & the Constitutionality of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act FIU LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM FALL 2010 November 12, 2010 Cure, Botch or Opiate? Law, Politics, & the Constitutionality of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act FIU LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM November 12, 2010 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) makes a number of changes to the provision of health care in the United States. Celebrated by some and rejected by others, the PPACA is making waves in the debate regarding health care reform, causing over twenty states to file suit challenging its constitutionality. The politics surrounding PPACA and the policy changes it implements remain controversial, causing some to call for partial or complete repeal. _______ We welcome you to our Fall 2010 Symposium as experts in constitutional law, and health policy, explain and debate the issues surrounding the law, politics, policies, and constitutionality of PPACA. Presented by: FIU Law Review SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 8:30 – 9:15 A.M Breakfast FIU College of Law Atrium 9:30 – 9:45 A.M. Welcome and Introduction Large Courtroom – RDB 1000 Speakers: HON. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Dean, FIU College of Law FRANK HOUSTON, Editor-in-Chief, FIU Law Review 9:45 – 11:30 A.M. Panel I: The Constitutionality of PPACA Large Courtroom – RDB 1000 Panelists: GERARD N. MAGLIOCCA Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR. Partner Baker Hostetler LLP ILYA SHAPIRO Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Cato Institute Moderator: ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY, Professor, FIU College of Law – 15 minute break – 11:45 – 1:15 P.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, P
    Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 576-2 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 576-2 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 10 KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. Sumner Square Suite 400 1615 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326-7900 Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. was formed in the spring of 1993 by law school classmates Michael Kellogg, Peter Huber, and Mark Hansen (Harvard ’82). The firm has grown rapidly since then. It now includes 33 Partners, 32 Associates, 3 Of Counsel, 17 Staff Attorneys, and 10 Paralegals and Researchers. Our practice is focused on trials and appeals in federal and state courts across the United States and before federal agencies. This litigation builds on the experience of the firm’s partners as lawyers at the Department of Justice and elsewhere in the federal government and in other endeavors. Michael Kellogg, Mark Hansen, Chris Todd, Reid Figel, Jim Webster, and Wan Kim served as Assistant United States Attorneys; Michael Kellogg and David Frederick served as Assistants to the Solicitor General; Rebecca Beynon served as Deputy General Counsel at the Office of Management and Budget and as a Special Assistant to the President; Wan Kim served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division; and Courtney Simmons Elwood served as an Associate Counsel to the President, Deputy Counsel to the Vice President, and Deputy Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. Geoff Klineberg served as the Counselor on International Law in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the Department of State.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
    UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES PUBLIC 1. Name: State full name (include any former names used). Gustavo Antonio Gelpi 2. Po ition: State the position for which you have been nominated. United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit 3. Address: List current office address. If city and state of residence differs from your place of employment, please list the city and state where you currently reside. Clemente Ruiz Nazario United States Courthouse 150 Carlos Chardon Avenue, CH-151 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Jose V. Toledo Federal Courthouse 300 Recinto Sur Street, CH-126 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 4. Birthplace: State year and place of birth. 1965; San Juan, Puerto Rico 5. Education: List in reverse chronological order each college, law school, or any other institution of higher education attended and indicate for each the dates of attendance, whether a degree was received, and the date each degree was received. 1988 - 1991, Suffolk University Law School; J.D., 1991 1987, Arizona State University Law School (no degree received) 1983 - 1987, Brandeis University; B.A., 1987 6. Employment R cord: List in reverse chronological order all governmental agencies, business or professional corporations, companies, firms, or other enterprises, partnerships, institutions or organizations, non-profit or otherwise, with which you have been affiliated as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee since graduation from college, whether or not you received payment for your services. Include
    [Show full text]