Cases

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDER Petitioner having filed the required brief, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.

879 A.2d 669 (2005) Neal S. HILLIARD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 04-CO-459. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted June 9, 2005. Decided July 21, 2005. Neal S. Hilliard, pro se. Kenneth L. Wainstein, United States Attorney, and John R. Fisher, Thomas J. Tourish, Jr., Susan Cushman, and Susan A. Nellor, Assistant Unit

ORDER The petitioner having failed to file an appendix required by Federal Circuit Rule 30(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.

ORDER Petitioner having filed the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is, ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED. Petitioner’s brief is due within 60 days from the date of filing of this order.

ORDER Petitioner having filed the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is, ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED. Petitioner’s brief is due within 60 days from the date of filing of this order.

638 A.2d 698 (1994) Jessie HILLIARD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 89-CF-923. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued September 19, 1991. Decided March 15, 1994. *699 Daniel J. Harn, Washington, DC, for appellant. Kristan Peters-Hamlin, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Jay B. Stephens, U.S. A

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

OPINION MARTIN, Chief Judge. Rockie Lane Hilliard appeals the judgment of the district court denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Hilliard bases his collateral attack of his conviction on his contention th

iV/A;' 'i 4 2010 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Courts for the District of Columbia FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JEFFERY MICHAEL HILLIARD, )

510 U.S. 1130 Hilliardv.United States. No. 93-7252. Supreme Court of United States. February 22, 1994. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 6th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 11 F. 3

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Following a sting operation, Timothy Hilliard was charged with ten counts relating to numerous controlled sales of heroin, a heroin-for-guns trade, and a gun ■ and heroin found during the execution of a search warrant at his home. At trial, Hilli-ard asserted an entrapment defense; the jury ultimately found Hilliard guilty on nine of the ten counts but was unable to reach a verdict on the first count. H

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16‐1249 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. TIMOTHY HILLIARD, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16‐1249 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. TIMOTHY HILLIARD, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge: In 1995, J. Howard Marshall, II (“J. Howard”) made what the IRS later determined was an indirect gift of Marshall Petroleum, Inc. (“MPI”) stock to MPI’s other shareholders: (1) Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens (“Stevens”), J. How'ard’s former wife, who was the beneficiary of a trust that was funded by MPI stock; (2) E. Pierce Marshall (“E. Pierce”), J. Howard’s son; (3) Elaine T. Marshall (“Ela

PRADO, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court in part, in which REAVLEY and OWEN, Circuit Judges, concur. OWEN, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court in part, in which REAVLEY, Circuit Judge, concurs. PRADO, Circuit Judge, filed an opinion dissenting in part. PER CURIAM: The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The opinion that issued on November