Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10203 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00473- v. WBS-1 ARNOLD RAY TAYLOR, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 25, 2021 Decided March 1, 2022 No. 20-3025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. ARNOLD JACKSON, APPELLANT Consolidated with 20-3046, 21-3035 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columb

CCA 201200882. On consideration of Appellant’s motion to consolidate this case with United States v. Quick, 15-0347/MC, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied.

l l DNA Processing Req'uired. 10 U.S'.C. § 1565 GCMO No. 5, 19 J'une 2014, was the last GCMO of this headquarters published in FYl4. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE WARFARE CENTER (ACC) ~ NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, NEVADA 89191-6505 General Court-l\/lartial Order No. 1 ~ ' 15 Septernber 2015 AIRl\/IAN FIRST CLASS JOSHUA A. ARNOLD, XXX-XX-XXXX, United States Air Force, 422d 'l`-est and Ev`aluation Squadron, was arraigned at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, on the f

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Jason Arnold was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, Arnold moved to discharge his counsel and represent himself. During a hearing on the motion, the district judge attempted a Faretta colloquy, first asking Arnold whether he understood the charges against him; Arnold was unable or unwilling to answer this question. As a result, the

CCA 201200382. Appellee’s motion to extend time to file a brief granted to June 19, 2015.

CCA 201200382. On consideration of the motions filed by Lieutenant Carrie E. Theis, for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned other counsel to represent said Appellants and that the new attorney has assumed the representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

CCA 201200382. Appellant’s motion to correct the joint appendix is granted.

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before J.A. FISCHER, K.M. MCDONALD, D.C. KING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL A. ARNOLD CORPORAL (E-4), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201400

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before F.D. MITCHELL, J.R. MCFARLANE, M.C. HOLIFIELD Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL A. ARNOLD LANCE CORPORAL (E-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201200

ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief Judge. Defendant Timothy Arnold has filed a Motion to Dismiss Due to Statute of Limitations. Dkt. Nos. 34, 48. After an independent and de novo review, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which Defendant has objected. Dkt. Nos. 57, 79. The basis for Defendant’s objection is that the alleged conduct occurred

Reversed, vacated, and remanded by published opinion. Judge HARRIS wrote the opinion, in which Judge GREGORY and Senior Judge DAVIS joined. *171 PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: Arnold Paul Burleson was convicted of several North Carolina felony offenses between 1964 and 1985. Based

CCA 201200382. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 261 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in light of United States v. Kish, 72 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F., 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and the cases are returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration after the conclusion of its review in

MATHESON, Circuit Judge. Richard Arnold, Sr., appeals the district court’s forfeiture order following his wire fraud and conspiracy convictions and sentencing for a scheme involving vehicle-financing rebates. 1 He argues the district court erred by (1) imposing an order of forfeiture, after sente

PER CURIAM: Curtis Arnold appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Arnold, No. 3:05-cr-00046-RJC-DSC-2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

CCA 37697. Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES. No briefs will be filed

PER CURIAM. Arnold Maurice Mathis, a registered sex offender, enticed a minor to engage in sexual activity in 2004. Seven years later, in 2011, he attempted to convince a minor to take sexually explicit pictures and send them to him via text message, and he actually succeeded in convincing a different minor to do so. Based on this conduct, a jury convicted Mathis of several chil

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Arnold appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to amend his presentence report. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Arnold, <

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Arnold appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to amend his presentence report. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Arnold, <

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether customs officers at Los Angeles International Airport may examine the electronic contents of a passenger’s laptop computer without reasonable suspicion. *943 I On July 17, 2005, forty-three-year-old Michae