Sentences with phrase «set by a federal judge»

The Free Beacon's notification to the House Intelligence Committee came a few days before a deadline set by a federal judge for Fusion GPS's bank to respond to a subpoena issued by the committee for financial records that could have revealed who funded the dossier.

His new fieldwork comes as the agency is in the final days of mulling whether to list the bears under the Endangered Species Act before a deadline of May 15 set by a federal judge in California.

Not exact matches

His revised travel ban, affecting travelers from six Muslim - majority nations, was set to go effect Thursday before it was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii.

A victory in the case, though, would potentially set up a conflict among federal judges that ultimately would have to be worked out by the Supreme Court.

A federal judge delayed sentencing of Edward Walsh, and set a date for a pre-sentencing hearing on whether new assertions by federal prosecutors are accurate and should potentially increase the prison time faced by the former Suffolk Conservative Party leader.

Geoffrey Berman's interim appointment as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York is set to expire in a matter of weeks, shouldering Manhattan federal judges with the responsibility of appointing Berman until a formal nomination is made by the White House and confirmed by the Senate, finding someone else or even opting out entirely.

The military must stick to the Jan. 1, 2018, deadline previously set by the Pentagon for allowing transgender military recruits, a federal judge ruled.

STATEN ISLAND — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has four days to set a date for a special election to fill the seat vacated by former Rep. Michael Grimm.

A federal judge Friday delayed sentencing of Edward Walsh, and set a date for a hearing on whether new assertions by federal prosecutors should potentially increase the prison time faced by the former Suffolk Conservative Party leader.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has set a hearing for Friday on a bid by President Donald Trump and his embattled personal attorney Michael Cohen to delay a lawsuit filed by porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had a sexual encounter with Trump about a decade ago.

The reason the issue is on the table is because of a 2012 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe requiring the state to set federal primaries for the fourth Tuesday in June.

But Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in his judgment, delivered on July 1, 2015, held that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit while the June 8, 2015 judgment of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, nullifying the extradition application and affirmed by another judge of the same Lagos division on June 23, 2015, had not been set aside by any appellate court.

The judicial collision course was set Friday when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that climate change lawsuits by two counties and one city were best adjudicated in California state courts.

A U.S. District Court in San Francisco will be the setting for a first - ever hearing on the science of climate change, scheduled for March 21 by William Alsup, a federal judge.

The presiding judge - William Sessions III, sitting in the U.S. District Court in Burlington - rejected the carmakers» argument that the proposed state rules conflicted with rules set forth by the federal government and that they imposed unnecessary and costly burdens on them:

I generally believe (and often have argued) that a wide range of considerations can and should be brought to bear as a federal sentencing judge considers, under 18 U.S.C § 3553 (a), what sentence will be «sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth» by Congress.

And this wouldn't be just state judges setting up their own rules for liberal Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts — it would be a federal judge striking down opposite - sex - marriage only laws enacted by a 70 % -30 % vote.

I can also argue by analogy to the preponderance of evidence floor set not only in federal law, but also in the law of the sister jurisdictions of Maryland and the District of Columbia (but watch out for hostility by some judges towards those jurisdictions, to the extent they might view Maryland and D.C. law as too lenient for criminal defendants).

Although it is hard to be certain without more publicly available information, FISC judges likely treat their opinions as non-precedential, as is standard practice for federal district courts.19 The relatively few public FISC opinions do cite earlier FISC opinions and principles of law, 20 but we have seen no clear evidence to suggest that the judges feel formally bound by those earlier opinions in any manner that would set them apart from other Article III district courts.