Avelino Gonzalez Claudio had fought extradition to the U.S. from Puerto Rico, but a federal judge there rejected his bail request. He appeared Thursday in U.S. District Court in Hartford.

Gonzalez was arrested by the FBI earlier this month in Puerto Rico. The 65-year-old had been working there as a teacher and living under an assumed name.

Gonzalez is one of more than a dozen people indicted in the Sept. 12, 1983, robbery of about $7 million from a Wells Fargo armored car depot in West Hartford.

He is being held without bond and is due back in court Tuesday for a bond hearing.

The victims' families clamored for a trial, and prosecutors felt there was plenty of evidence for one. So they moved to rescind the deal.

They were rebuked Wednesday by a judge, who said their regrets weren't grounds for them to renege on an agreement reached weeks ago.

The judge's order means Michael Mastromarino, 44, will go to prison for 18 to 54 years for his ghoulish crimes — possibly putting him behind bars for the rest of his life.

"Mr. Mastromarino may never see the light of day," said Brooklyn Judge Albert Tomei, whose words brought Mastromarino's mother to tears.

Prosecutor Monique Ferrell said there had been a "change in circumstance" and a trial was needed to reveal the full "scope of harm he caused." She said prosecutors became fully aware of his activities only in the last year.

In a statement e-mailed after the hearing, a spokesman for the Brooklyn district attorney's office provided a clearer explanation of why prosecutors sought a trial.

A former partner in the New York office of Dorsey & Whitney is suing the Minneapolis-based law firm, claiming gender discrimination and violations of the whistleblower act, among other things.

Hennepin County District Court Judge Gary Larson heard an hour of arguments Tuesday on the Dorsey firm's motion to dismiss Kristan Peters' suit.

Peters began working as a Dorsey partner in January 2007 and left on June 23. At the core of the case is her handling of a trade secrets dispute on behalf of Wolters Kluwer Financial Services in New York. The matter drew media attention in trade publications, largely because of U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer Jr.'s 129-page opinion criticizing Peters' behavior.

According to R. Scott Davies of Briggs and Morgan, who is representing Dorsey, Baier scolded Peters 22 times for her handling of the case. Davies said Peters played fast and loose with the litigation, lied to the court and misrepresented circumstances to the firm's partners.

Peters' lawyer James Kaster countered that the judge's behavior, not Peters', was unusual. The behavior Baer disliked -- such as scheduling a 7-hour deposition over two days and refusing to give bathroom breaks -- is not unusual, Kaster said.

Peters was denied her fair share of her $550,000 annual salary and an equity payment from the partnership, Kaster said. She claims the firm should indemnify her for issues stemming from the Kluwer litigation and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000.

"The Dorsey law firm has a well-deserved reputation for excellence," Kaster said in court. "Frankly, I don't believe the treatment of Kristan Peters suits them."

He said Peters was let go because "she refused to fall on her sword" for Zach Carter, a "marquee partner" in the firm's New York office. She complained about his discriminatory behavior, ethical violations and violation of a court order to multiple members of Dorsey's managing team, the complaint said.

In his motion to dismiss the case, Davies said Peters made the claims when she could "see the writing on the wall" regarding her employment.

Peters' lawsuit claims that as a result of the complaints, she was told to resign or be fired and chose "resignation."

Davies said Peters' guaranteed $550,000 salary was "subject to her ethical duties as a lawyer." Peters did not act in good faith and is not entitled to indemnification, he said. He said it was unfair to criticize the judge.

Her conduct was "worse than unprofessional," Davies said. She deleted parts of an e-mail from the judge that she forwarded to a partner and ordered a copy made of disks despite a judge's order to return them to the court.

Davies contends she ordered a junior associate to alter documents so they could be classified as "work product." In filings, Peters claimed the destruction order was a "joke."

Davies also took issue with the gender bias claim, noting the firm's policy panel was led by managing partner Marianne Short from the time of Peters' hiring to her departure.

Peters did not attend Tuesday's hearing. Larson didn't say when he would rule, but asked the parties for an update on mediation within the week.

Lawyers are asking an appeals court in Virginia to toss out Moussaoui's guilty plea. They say the strict rules about what classified information could be discussed made it impossible for attorneys to properly advise him. They say that violated Moussaoui's constitutional rights.

In the case being argued Wednesday, Exxon Mobil Corp. wants the court to erase the award of punitive damages to nearly 33,000 commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments.

The 987-foot tanker, commanded by its captain, Joseph Hazelwood, missed a turn and ran aground on a reef in Prince William Sound, causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Two brothers from Cordova, Alaska, were in line in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, waiting to watch the arguments inside.

Commercial fisherman Steve Copeland, who was 41 at the time of the spill, said he cannot afford to retire because his business has never recovered from the steep decline it suffered due to the disaster.

His brother, Tom, said that Exxon "needs to get told they need to be a better corporate citizen."

A jury initially awarded $287 million to compensate for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut the punitive damages in half. The compensatory damages have been paid.

Now Exxon says it should not face any punitive damages because the company already has paid $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs, claims and other expenses.

It argues that long-standing maritime law and the 1970s-era Clean Water Act should bar any punitive damages, which are intended both to punish behavior and deter a repeat.

The company says it should not be held accountable for Hazelwood's reckless conduct. He left the bridge of the ship before the turn and had been drinking shortly before it left port, both in violation of Coast Guard rules and company policy.

The plaintiffs say the judgment, representing three weeks of Exxon's 2006 profit, is rational and proportionate. It takes account of Exxon's decision to allow Hazelwood to command the ship, despite knowing he had an ongoing drinking problem, the plaintiffs contend.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon stock, is not taking part in the case. A 4-4 split would leave the damages award in place.