North Dakota Supreme Court

In the first case State v. Ringquist, 433 N.W. 2d. 207 (N.D 1988) Filed Dec. 6, 1988 which was before the North Dakota Supreme Court the function of the federal court was to determine if, “an appeal by the State of North Dakota from a district court order suppressing evidence obtained during a search of Richard Allen Ringquist's apartment pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Stark County Court” it was determined that the lower court was incorrect in their decision to suppress and the federal court reversed and remand the court order.  The case falls under State jurisdiction because of the nature and circumstances of the crime.  The jurisdiction is the North Dakota Supreme Court because it is deciding the constitutionality of the case and the venue would be the District court of Stark County (http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinion/870361.htm).

In the second case No. 04SA178. People v. Turner, Jr. the function were the responsibility of the federal court because, “The Alliance petitioned us for issuance of a Rule to Show Cause, which we granted”.  The case falls under State jurisdiction because of the nature and circumstances of the crime.  The jurisdiction is the Supreme Court of Colorado and the venue would be the Chaffee County Court. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=2005sc\5063&invol=1)

The third case United States v. Lopez-Montanez the function of the federal was “whether a prior felony conviction under California’s sexual battery statute, Cal. Penal Code, § 243.4(a), constitutes a “crime of violence” under the federal Sentencing Guidelines’ provision governing sentences for unlawful reentry into the United States, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The district court found that a conviction under the California statute was a “forcible sex offense” and thus a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 2L1.2. We disagree, and hold that a conviction under the California sexual battery statute is not a categorical crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Applying this circuit’s modified categorical approach, we also hold that the government did not adequately prove that the appellant’s California conviction in fact qualified as a crime of violence.

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment, vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing”.  The Jurisdiction was the United States of America because a state law was in question and the case falls under federal jurisdiction.  The venue was District court of California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0450260p.pdf).

In United States v. Williams the function of the federal court was, “Lee Williams was indicted and convicted by a jury for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, Williams raises many issues, but we need not reach most of them because we conclude, as a matter of law, that venue was not proper in Michigan where the case was tried and that the district court erred in denying Williams's motion to change venue. Therefore, we will reverse the judgment of conviction”.  The jurisdiction was the U.S. because of deciding the constitutionality of the decision.  The venue, first, was in Michigan (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=docket&no=01a043)

 

Sarah from Law Aspect

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/9aavBA