John J. Velasquez | Omaha Criminal Defense Lawyer

Law Firm Cases -Kim v. Gen-X Clothing, 2014 -Caniglia v. Caniglia, 285 Neb.930, 2013 -Hofferber V Hastings Utilites, 282 Neb. 215, 803 N.W.2d 1 (2011) -In re: Estate of Samuel Joseph Failla, Sr., 278 Neb. 770, 773 N.W.2d 793 (2009) -Hofferber v. City of Hastings, 275 Neb. 503, 747 N.W.2d 389 (2008) -Doeschot v. Doeschot, No-A-07-628 (Neb Ct. App., 2008) -Builders Supply Co. v. Czerwinski, 275 Neb. 622, N.W. 2d (2008) -Parkert v. Lindguist, 269 Neb. 394, 693 N.W.2d 529 (2005) -Douglas County Bd. of Com’rs v. Civil Service Com’n, 263 Neb. 544, 641 N.W.2d 55 (2002) -Cedars Corp. v. Sun Valley Development Co., 253 Neb. 999, 573 N,W.2d 467 (1998) -Long v. Hacker, 246 Neb. 547, 520 N.W.2d 195 (1994) -Booth v. Blueberry Hill Restaurants, Inc., 245 Neb. 490, 513 N.W.2d 867 (1994) -State ex rel. Pederson v. Howe’l, 239 Neb. 51, 474 N.W.2d 22 (1991) -Abboud v. Lakeview, Inc., 237 Neb. 326, 466 N.W.2d 442 (1991) -Board of Regents of University of Nebraska v. Wiiscam Muliins Birge, Inc., 230 Neb. 675, 433 N.W.2d 478 (1988) -Keim v. Keim, 228 Neb. 684, 424 N.W.2d 112 (1988) -Yale Richards for and on Behalf of Westside Supply Co. v. Arthaloney, 216 Neb. 11, 342 N.W.2d 642 (1983) -Fisher v. Housing Authority of City of Omaha, 214 Neb. 499, 334 N.W.2d 636 (1983) -Bemis v. Board of Equalization of Douglas County, 197 Neb. 175, 247 N.W.2d 447 (1976) -Center Bank v. Mid-Continent Meats, Inc., 194 Neb. 665, 234 N.W.2d 902 (1975) -Overland-Wolf, Inc. v. Koory, 183 Neb. 611, 162 N.W.2d 889 (1968)

UNITED STATES V. REYNOSO-MENDEZ
Defendant: Attorney for the defendant, Carlos Reynoso Mendez. Mendez plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute a substance containing methamphetamine. The court accepted his plea agreement and he was sentences to 70 months with there years of supervised release to follow. The defendant moved to have his conviction vacated or his sentence corrected. He argues that he had insufficient legal counsel and because his language barrier prevented him from fully understanding the extent of the proceedings. Upon review of his complaints a judge determined that he could not prove his claims. His motion was denied and his sentence upheld.

U.S. v NUNEZ
Attorney for the Defendant in a case cited as U.S. v Nunez. Details are unknown as the document only shows that said counsel was appointed but offers no further details. The case is a 2016 case so it is likely that it is ongoing.