Legal Opinion
United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided September 5, 2012No. Criminal Action No. C-06-563PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
JOHN D. RAINEY, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants CITGO Petroleum Corporation and CIT-GO Refining and Chemicals Company, L.P.’s (collectively “CITGO”) Motion to Vacate CITGO’s Conviction for Violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Dkt. No. 766), to which the United States of America (“the Government”) has respond*842ed (Dkt. No. 770) and CITGO has replied (Dkt. No. 771). Having considered the motion, response, reply, record, and relevant law, the Court is of the opinion that CITGO’s motion should be DENIED.
I. Background
The Migratory Bird…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- United States v. PitroneCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- United States v. EnglerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- United States v. William F. RayCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1973
- Calvin Rogers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- United States v. CorrowCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. BeaudreauDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- United States v. CITGO Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2015
- United States v. CITGO Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2015
- United States v. CITGO Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2015
- ['PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY v. BROMWICH']District Court, District of Columbia · 2014