Here’s how to get more nuanced and relevant search results:
FOR THESE RESULTS... USE THE SYNTAX... FOR EXAMPLE...
Both terms must be present and trademark and infringement
Either term must be present or trademark or infringement
Exclude a term not trademark not infringement
Enclosed quotation (exact match) "  " "trademark infringement"
Unidirectional search, left to right: in armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to right of "armed robbery." w/# armed robbery w/5 gun
Bidirectional search: in armed robbery near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to right or left of "armed robbery." near:x armed robbery near:5 gun
Grouping search terms ( ) (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or accident)
Expand root word by any number of letters ! liab! yields liable or liability
This Document Cites the Following Cases:
Citation is not available at this time. Please check back later.
This case is cited by:
Citation is not available at this time. Please check back later.
Here’s how to get more nuanced and relevant search results:
FOR THESE RESULTS... USE THE SYNTAX... FOR EXAMPLE...
Both terms must be present and trademark and infringement
Either term must be present or trademark or infringement
Exclude a term not trademark not infringement
Enclosed quotation (exact match) "  " "trademark infringement"
Unidirectional search, left to right: in armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to right of "armed robbery." w/# armed robbery w/5 gun
Bidirectional search: in armed robbery near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to right or left of "armed robbery." near:x armed robbery near:5 gun
Grouping search terms ( ) (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or accident)
Expand root word by any number of letters ! liab! yields liable or liability
This case cites:
This case is cited by:

United States v. Szpyt

2009 | Cited 0 times | D. Maine | March 3, 2009

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No objections having been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision (Docket No. 600) filed February 6, 2009, the Recommended Decision is AFFIRMED.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Docket No. 358) is DENIED.

Back to top