Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Justin Blair Alford appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Alford contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify a de

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 06a0054p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee, - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PER CURIAM. The defendant in this case was sentenced prior to the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The defendant raised and preserved error as to the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines at the time of sentencing. The defendant was also sentenced to the minimum possible sentence under the applicable federal sentencing g

531 F.Supp.2d 814 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Raymond Lemar ALFORD-KING, Defendant. No. 1:07-CR-200. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division. January 2, 2008. Richard S. Murray, U.S. Attorney, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiff. Lawrence J. Phelan, Haehnel & Phelan, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Donald John Alford has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Alford has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 97-50642 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BILLY MEL ALFORD, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________

REVISED - June 18, 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 97-50642 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BILLY MEL ALFORD, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 18, 2023 Decided January 5, 2024 No. 23-3023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. RUSSELL DEAN ALFORD, APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:21-cr-00263

Case: 19-1678 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 06/19/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TROY ALFORD, KATHY ALFORD, HAROLD ANGELO, LUCY BARWICK, THOMAS BEASLEY, SANDRA BEASLEY, LARRY BLACKWELL, JOHN BRINKMAN, ANGELA BRITT, STEPHANIE COOK, JAMES COX, JOHN FEMINELLA, CHARLES FRANKLIN, GERALD GELSTON, JACK GOODSON, CHRIS HAMMACK, GUS HARRISON, CLAUDE HUDSON, SHERMAN HULL, OLLIE HULL, LAMARR JOSEP

9 F.3d 1547 U.S.v.Alford* NO. 9304204 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Nov 24, 1993 1 Appeal From: W.D.La. 2 AF

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 92-7371 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS CHRISTOPHER P. ALFORD,

Opinion of the Court EVERETT, Senior Judge: On December 18, 1989, Private Stephen D. Alford was tried at Fort Carson, Colorado, by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial. Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of two specifications of assault and battery and one specification each of communicating a threat and disorderly conduct, in violation of Articles 128 and 134 of the Unif

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: Contrary to his pleas, the appellant was convicted by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial of two specifications of assault consummated by a battery, disorderly conduct, and communicating a threat, in violation of Articles 128 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. §§ 928 and 934 (1982). The appellant was sentenced to a dishonorab

DECISION RIVES, Judge: Contrary to his pleas, Sergeant Michael D. Alford was convicted of using cocaine by a general court-martial composed of officer members.1 On appeal, he urges that *816the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the findings of guilty. He also asserts that his conviction cannot stand because of an in

Claim for military disability benefits; review of a decision by the Board for Correction of Naval Records; potential applicability of statutory requirement for an opinion by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist; 10 U.S.C. § 1552(g); grant of voluntary remand OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Plaintiff, Carlos A. Alford, a forme

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates QCourt of jfeberal QClaims No. 15-1583C Ff LED (Filed: April 18, 2018) APR 1 8 2018 ********************************** U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

898 F.2d 150 U.S.v.Alford* NO. 89-1346 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. FEB 28, 1990 1 Appeal From: W.D.Tex. 2

Subject Matter Jurisdiction, State law claims OPINION AND ORDER SMITH, Senior Judge This consolidated action is before the court on defendant’s partial motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs primarily claim that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Craps”) effected a Fifth Amendment taking of their property 'by diverting flood waters from

Military back pay and disability retirement claims; applicability of the six-year statute of limitations set out at 28 U.S.C. § 2501 to the back pay claim; issue preclusion as to that claim; jurisdiction over the disability retirement claim; remand. ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Mr. Carlos A. Alford, a former United States Marine, seeks t