Category: 64 F.3d ___

64 F.3d 979 ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI, S.p.A., Plaintiff-Appellee,v.RANGER INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants,Ranger Insurance Co., ETL Corp., and Empire Truck Lines,Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 94-20404. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Sept. 21, 1995.Order Denying Rehearing Oct. 24, 1995. David J. Sacks, Sacks & Associates, Houston, TX, Steven C. Howard, Rand Nolen, Tucker, Hendrix & Gascoyne, Houston, […]

64 F.3d 98 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Sylvestro NANFRO, Antonino Fazio, also known as Nino, &James W. McGrath, Defendants,Robert Ingrao, also known as Bobby, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1205, Docket 94-1455. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Argued June 7, 1995.Decided Aug. 28, 1995. Cheryl J. Sturm, West Chester, PA, for defendant-appellant. Nancy J. Northup, Asst. U.S. […]

64 F.3d 984 17 ITRD 1801, 64 USLW 2216 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.FOOD, 2,998 CASES, etc., Defendant.First Phoenix Group, Ltd., Claimant-Appellee. No. 94-30389. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Sept. 26, 1995. Peter R. Maier, Douglas N. Letter, Appellate Lit. Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Patricia J. Kaeding, Asst. Chief Counsel, U.S. […]

64 F.3d 993 64 USLW 2209 GATEWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,v.MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP., Defendant-Appellant.MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP., Plaintiff,v.GATEWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. Nos. 93-1101, 94-10787. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Sept. 27, 1995. Douglas G. Bonner, Senior Atty., Washington, DC, Alan Wright, Sharon Freytag, Haynes & Boone, Dallas, TX, David Kelther, Haynes & Boone, and Lynne Liberato, […]

64 F.3d 962 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2261 GREENSBORO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASS’N, LOCAL 3157;Steven B. Zimmerman, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.CITY OF GREENSBORO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-1878. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued April 5, 1995.Decided Sept. 18, 1995. ARGUED: M. Travis Payne, Edelstein & Payne, Raleigh, NC, for appellants. Martin Nesbitt Erwin, Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P., […]

64 F.3d 967 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Ben D. CAMPBELL and John G. Campbell, Defendants-Appellants. No. 94-40897. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Sept. 12, 1995. John H. Hagler, Dallas, TX, for Ben D. Campbell. Herbert V. Larson, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for John G. Campbell. Andrea H. Pustejovsky, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, TX, Michael […]

64 F.3d 944 27 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 941 DONMAR ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellee,andSouthern International Corporation, Defendant. No. 93-2101. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued March 9, 1994.Decided Sept. 13, 1995. ARGUED: Robert Spencer Adden, Jr., Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & McNair, Charlotte, NC, for appellant. Josephine Herring Hicks, Parker, Poe, […]

64 F.3d 951 Ghulam Mohammed NASIM, Plaintiff-Appellant,andGhulam Ahmed Nasim; Abdul Karim Nasim, Plaintiffs,v.WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION; Asbestos Contractor,Maryland House of Correction; Unknown Prison Officials,Maryland House of Correction, All Individually and in theirOfficial Capacity Under Color of State Law, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-7263. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued June 6, 1995.Decided Sept. 15, 1995. […]

64 F.3d 928 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.William Ronald FORBES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-5330. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued March 10, 1995.Decided Sept. 13, 1995. ARGUED: James Stockton Perry, Perry, Perry, Perry & Grigg, Kinston, NC, for appellant. William Arthur Webb, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee. ON BRIEF: Janice McKenzie Cole, […]

64 F.3d 935 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2349, 130 Lab.Cas. P 11,406 FPC HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Fiber Products, Petitioner,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.FPC HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Fiber Products, Respondent. Nos. 94-2415, 94-2513. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued May 3, 1995.Decided Sept. 13, 1995. ARGUED: Frank S. Astroth, Astroth, Serotte, Rockman […]

64 F.3d 880 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2193, 64 USLW 2171,130 Lab.Cas. P 11,403,33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 431 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA ANDVICINITY, AFL-CIO; Patrick Gillespie, Petitioners,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 95-3330. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued July 31, 1995.Decided Sept. 11, 1995. Bernard N. Katz (argued), Steven David Masters, Meranze and […]

64 F.3d 892 Nuclear Reg. Rep. P 20,570, 41 ERC 1849,26 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,246 STATE of SOUTH CAROLINA, ex rel.; Carroll A. CAMPBELL, Jr.,Governor of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, AttorneyGeneral of South Carolina; Barbara G. Campbell; JanineGraham; Edlis Hunt; Geneva Lucas; Alice Seals; theCenter for Community Action; Blue Ridge EnvironmentalDefense League, Incorporated; the […]

64 F.3d 907 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Allen MORSLEY, a/k/a Amni Conoa, a/k/a Baldhead, a/k/aRaleek, a/k/a Alan Mosely, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Tuval McKOY, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Melvin ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 94-5203, 94-5204 and 94-5223. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued July 11, 1995.Decided Aug. 31, 1995. ARGUED: Kevin Michael Schad, Cincinnati, OH, […]

64 F.3d 91 Michael Christopher MILANO, an infant, by his parents andnatural guardians, Christopher MILANO and JeanneMilano, and Christopher Milano andJeanne Milano, individually,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Jay A. FREED, Marvin A. Lieber, Arnold W. Scherz, MitchellKleinberg, and Stephanie Citerman, Individually and d/b/aFreed Lieber Scherz Kleinberg and Citerman, a partnership,Richard Silvergleid, Manhasset Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., andAlan D. Rosenthal, Defendants-Appellees. No. […]

64 F.3d 920 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.COST CONTROL MARKETING & SALES MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA,INCORPORATED; William P. Peterson; ArthurKujawski; Richard R. Costenbader;James M. Marley, Defendants-Appellants,andThornton Byron; Stuart Guskind; Earl Hissom; MonticelloDevelopment, Defendants. No. 94-2357. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued May 3, 1995.Decided Sept. 8, 1995. ARGUED: Francis Townley Eck, Brian […]

64 F.3d 852 42 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1354 PECO ENERGY COMPANYv.Kenneth Henry Edmund BODEN; London & Hull MaritimeInsurance Company Limited; Insurance Company of NorthAmerica (U.K.) Limited; The Yorkshire Insurance CompanyLimited; Indemnity Maritime Assurance Company Limited, Appellants. No. 94-1883. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 15, 1995.Decided Aug. 31, 1995. Dante Mattioni, Mattioni, […]

64 F.3d 860 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,703 Leatch BOOKER, III,v.TAYLOR MILK COMPANY, INC.; Russell Morgan; Timothy M.Garcia; Diane Petcash; Joseph S. Taylor; PhilF. Richardson; Dick Richardson;Richardson & Associates.Leatch Booker, III, Appellant in No. 94-3503 andCross-appellee in No. 94-3525.Taylor Milk Company, Inc., Appellant in No. 94-3525 andCross-appellee in No. 94-3503. Nos. 94-3503, 94-3525. United […]

64 F.3d 869 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,110 Alan H. BRADER, Appellant,v.ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL; George J. Magovern, and DanielL. Diamond. No. 94-3578. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued May 2, 1995.Decided Sept. 1, 1995. Michael A. Cassidy (argued), Kabala & Geeseman, Pittsburgh, PA, Melvin L. Vatz, Grossinger, Gordon & Vatz, Pittsburgh, PA, for appellant. […]

64 F.3d 833 64 USLW 2192 WESTERN UNITED LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANYv.Debra Ann HAYDEN; David Gerard Hayden; Reliance InsuranceCompany; United Pacific Life Insurance Company;Western United Life Assurance Company Appellant. No. 94-3548. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued March 9, 1995.Decided Aug. 30, 1995.Sur Petition for Rehearing Sept. 22, 1995. George M. Cheever (argued), Catherine […]

64 F.3d 844 42 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1175 UNITED STATES of America; Government of the Virgin Islandsv.Edwin VELASQUEZ, Appellant. No. 93-7236. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued April 17, 1995.Decided Aug. 31, 1995.Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1995. Michael A. Joseph (Argued), Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, for appellant. W. Ronald Jennings, United […]

64 F.3d 818 UNITED STATES of Americav.Sidney J. DICKLER, Richard R. Petrucci.Sidney J. Dickler, Appellant in No. 94-3517.Richard R. Petrucci, Appellant in No. 94-3518. Nos. 94-3517, 94-3518. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued April 18, 1995.Decided Aug. 21, 1995. Frederick W. Thieman, U.S. Atty., Bonnie R. Schlueter (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Pittsburgh, PA, […]

64 F.3d 82 1995 A.M.C. 2829 AQUARIUS MARINE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Federico F. PENA, as Secretary of Transportation of theUnited States; Albert J. Herberger, as MaritimeAdministrator United States Departmentof Transportation, Defendants-Appellants,Shipbuilders Council of America, et al.,Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 1153, 1381, Dockets 94-6222, 94-6224. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Argued Feb. 16, 1995.Decided Aug. 24, 1995. Jeffrey Clair, […]

64 F.3d 810 10 IER Cases 1811 Mark KOMLOSI, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.The NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION ANDDEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, Sheldon Kramer, LouisGanim, John Sabatos, Robert Witkowsky,Kenneth Brodsky, and JamesBrennan, Defendants-Appellants,Arthur Y. Webb, Elin M. Howe, Ivan Canuteson, George Young,Arthur Fogel, Melanie Fudenberg, William Guzman, WalterDeLeone, Charles DeYoung, The City of New York, The PoliceDepartment of […]

64 F.3d 773 THOMSON-CSF, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, Defendant,Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1565, Docket 94-9118. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued April 18, 1995.Decided Aug. 24, 1995. Fredrick E. Sherman, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, New York City (Steven C. Bennett, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, New York City, David […]

64 F.3d 794 64 USLW 2207, 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 1777,Pens. Plan Guide P 23914N NYS HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE; CapitalAreas Community Health Plan, Inc. Cap; Capital DistrictPhysicians Health Plan; Choicecare Long Island, Inc. HealthCare Plan, Inc.; Health Services Medical Corporation ofCentral New York, Inc.; Independent Health Association,Inc.; Mid-Hudson Health Plan; Mohawk Valley PhysiciansHealth Plan, […]

64 F.3d 804 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Benjamin G. CANCELMO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 1322, Docket 94-1552. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued April 21, 1995.Decided Sept. 1, 1995. John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, for defendant-appellant. William A. Collier, Assistant United States Attorney, District of Connecticut, Hartford, CT (Christopher Droney, United States Attorney, […]

64 F.3d 757 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Gregory Alan KINDER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 816, Docket 94-1333. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Jan. 26, 1995.Decided Aug. 16, 1995. Marybeth McCaffrey, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., Middlebury, VT (Bonnie Barnes, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., on the brief), for defendant-appellant. William B. Darrow, […]

64 F.3d 77 Jimmie Lee ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Thomas A. COUGHLIN III, Commissioner, New York StateDepartment of Correctional Services, Charles J. Scully,Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, DennisBliden, Deputy Superintendent, Program Services at GreenHaven C.F., jointly, severally, and individually,respectively, Defendants-Appellees. No. 1616, Docket 94-2665. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Argued June 12, 1995.Decided Aug. 24, 1995. Gracelyn […]

64 F.3d 781w Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,341John CONSORTI & Frances Consorti, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known asArmstrong Cork Co.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.,et al., Defendants,Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Defendant-Appellant. No. 857, Docket 94-7501. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Nov. 14, 1994.Decided Aug. 28, 1995. NOTE: THE COURT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS OPINION CC? | […]

64 F.3d 719 UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Carlos MARTINEZ-MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Luis MALDONADO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Alfonso RODRIGUEZ-RESTO, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Angel RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Angel FELICIANO-COLON, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Luis MAYSONET-MACHADO, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Rafael E. VELEZ-MATOS, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Victor NOBLE-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Eddie TRAVIESO-OCASIO, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES, Appellee,v.Oscar PAGAN-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 94-1249 to 94-1255, 94-1325, 94-1631 and 94-1791. United States […]

64 F.3d 735 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2129, 130 Lab.Cas. P 11,415 LOCAL 285, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.NONOTUCK RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-1031. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard May 5, 1995.Decided Aug. 31, 1995. David B. Rome, with whom Lois Johnson, Angoff, Goldman, Manning, Pyle, Wanger & Hiatt, P.C., Boston, MA, […]

64 F.3d 742 4 A.D. Cases 1450, 11 A.D.D. 576, 7NDLR P 77 Iris v. RIVERA-FLORES, Plaintiff, Appellant,v.PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee. No. 94-1977. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard March 7, 1995.Decided Sept. 6, 1995.Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1995. Harry Anduze Montano, for appellant. Edgardo Colon Arraras, with whom Ina M. […]

64 F.3d 752 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Appellee,v.REAL PROPERTY IN WATERBORO, et al., Defendants, Appellees,v.Patrick CUNAN, Claimant, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.Richard J. DECATO, Jr., et al., Defendants, Appellees.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Richard J. DECATO, Jr., et al., Defendants, Appellants. Nos. 93-2278, 94-1599 and 94-2036. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard May […]

64 F.3d 679 314 U.S.App.D.C. 175, Util. L. Rep. P 14,063 OXY USA, INC., Petitioner,v.FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation, BP Pipelines (Alaska)Inc., Exxon Pipeline Company, Mobil Alaska Pipeline Company,Phillips Alaska Pipeline Corporation, Unocal PipelineCompany, State of Alaska, ARCO Alaska, Inc., ARCOTransportation, Alaska, Inc., MAPCO Alaska Petroleum, Inc.,BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., Tesoro Alaska […]

64 F.3d 706 314 U.S.App.D.C. 202 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Eric GLENN, Appellant,UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Gregory SOUDER, Appellant. Nos. 93-3211, 94-3096. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Feb. 17, 1995.Decided Sept. 8, 1995. Allen E. Burns, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellant Eric Glenn. On […]

64 F.3d 712 314 U.S.App.D.C. 208 FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, et al., Appellants,v.Lloyd M. BENTSEN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.,Internal Revenue Service, Appellees. No. 94-5178. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.Sept. 11, 1995. Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD, SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS, GINSBURG, SENTELLE, HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges. Prior report: […]

64 F.3d 713 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Gerald R. CARON, Defendant, Appellant. No. 94-2026. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard May 1, 1995.Decided July 31, 1995.Order Granting Limited RehearingEn Banc Sept. 21, 1995. Owen S. Walker, Federal Public Defender, for appellant. Brian T. Kelly, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Donald K. Stern, U.S. […]

64 F.3d 702 314 U.S.App.D.C. 198 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CARMEN DIVISION, TRANSPORTATIONCOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Petitioner,v.Federico PENA, Secretary, Department of Transportation, andJolene Molitoris, Administrator, Federal RailroadAdministration, Respondents. Nos. 94-1156, 95-1169. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued March 31, 1995.Decided Sept. 1, 1995.Rehearing and Suggestionfor Rehearing In BancDenied Oct. 16, 1995. Petitions for […]

64 F.3d 678 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 678 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 678 40 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,835 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the […]

64 F.3d 678 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 678 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 678 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 678 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 678 17 ITRD 1800 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based […]

64 F.3d 678 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 677 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 676 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 676 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 676 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 676 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 676 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 676 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]

64 F.3d 676 NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision […]