⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “United States v. Banner”

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011-10-18 · Published · cited 0× · 450 F. App'x 292
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Edward Banner, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying Banner’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion to reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Uni
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004-01-29 · Published · cited 4× · 356 F.3d 478
PER CURIAM. Defendants Kevin Pierre and Dennis Forbes appeal from convictions and sentences for various drag-related crimes entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, Judge). In a summary order filed today, we address all but one of the defendants-appellants’ arguments, concluding that they are without merit. In this opinion, we consider the remaining issue: Whether
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004-01-29 · Published · cited 4× · 356 F.3d 478; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1342
356 F.3d 478 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Winston BANNER, also known as Conroy Porchman, also known as Cisco, Damon Shallow, also known as Romello, Defendants,Kevin PIERRE, also known as Jimmy Grant, also known as P.B., and Dennis Forbes, Defendants-Appellants. Docket No. 01-1537. Docket No. 02-1119. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998-07-01 · Published · cited 0× · 149 F.3d 1194; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 23628; 1998 WL 401121
149 F.3d 1194 U.S.v.Banner* NO. 97-4345 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. July 1, 1998 Appeal From: S.D.Fla. ,No.9614028CRNCR 1 Affirmed.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2015-04-20 · Published · cited 0× · 135 S. Ct. 1870; 191 L. Ed. 2d 743; 83 U.S.L.W. 3801; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2743
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1977-08-01 · Published · cited 0× · 559 F.2d 1213
559 F.2d 1213 U. S.v.Banner No. 76-1746 United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 8/1/77 1 M.D.N.C. AFFIRMED
Banner v. Jonespublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-05-22 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 2159; 198 L. Ed. 2d 235
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2020-02-24 · Published · cited 0× · 140 S. Ct. 1117; 206 L. Ed. 2d 185
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Banner v. Illinoispublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2016-10-03 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 183; 196 L. Ed. 2d 150; 85 U.S.L.W. 3144; 2016 U.S. LEXIS 5086
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
District Court, District of Columbia · 2004-03-11 · Published · cited 7× · 303 F. Supp. 2d 1; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3828; 2004 WL 445302
303 F.Supp.2d 1 (2004) James M. BANNER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 03-1587(ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 11, 2004. *2 John W. Nields, Jr., Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, Lois G. Williams, *3 Wash
District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1972-05-12 · Published · cited 0× · 343 F. Supp. 930; 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13790
*931MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER NEESE, District Judge. Aggrieved by an allegedly unlawful seizure of a contraband weapon by law enforcement officers, the defendant Mrs. Georgia R. Banner has moved to suppress for use as evidence herein the weapon, on the ground that the property was illegally seized without a warrant. Rule 41(e) (1), Federal Rules of
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001-01-29 · Published · cited 64× · 238 F.3d 1348; 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20429; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180; 2001 WL 69230
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. DECISION The appellants in this case are individuals who once leased portions of the Allega-ny Reservation from the Seneca Nation of Indians (“SNI”) in the western part of the State of New York. The appellants argue that the enactment of a federal statute, the Seneca Nation Land Claims Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 (1994 & Supp. IV 2000) (“Act of 1990”), constitutes
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-01-17 · Published · cited 0× · 137 S. Ct. 813; 196 L. Ed. 2d 599; 85 U.S.L.W. 3344; 2017 WL 160458; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 704
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona denied.
United States Court of Federal Claims · 1999-08-11 · Published · cited 0× · 44 Fed. Cl. 568; 1999 U.S. Claims LEXIS 194; 1999 WL 605631
ORDER TIDWELL, Senior Judge. A group of individuals and the Salamanca Coalition of United Taxpayers (“SCOUT”), who once leased portions of the Allegany Reservation in upstate New York, bring this Fifth Amendment takings and due process action. Plaintiffs contend that a 1990 congressional statute — the Seneca Nation Land Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 (1994) (hereinafter “Act of 1990”) — extin
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005-11-04 · Published · cited 26× · 428 F.3d 303; 368 U.S. App. D.C. 224; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23828; 2005 WL 2897351
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM. The local government of the District of Columbia is prohibited by Congress from imposing a “commuter tax” — from taxing the personal income of those who work in the District but reside elsewhere. Appellants brought suit in the district court challenging the restriction as unconstitutional. They argue that
District Court, District of Columbia · 2016-08-19 · Published · cited 0× · 201 F. Supp. 3d 131; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110447; 2016 WL 4435174
MEMORANDUM OPINION Amit P. Mehta, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Under the Medicare program, hospitals and other providers are reimbursed for the cost of covered medical services they administer to eligible patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is the federal agency which manages the Medicare prog
United States Court of Federal Claims · 1997-09-04 · Published · cited 0× · 38 Fed. Cl. 700; 1997 U.S. Claims LEXIS 181; 1997 WL 543133
ORDER MOODY R. TIDWELL, III, Judge. This action is brought by twenty individual plaintiffs and the Salamanca Coalition of United Taxpayers (SCOUT), a corporate plaintiff, seeking takings compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The complaint alleges that the enactment and enforcement of the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. § 1774 (1994) (hereinafter “1990 Act”), constitutes a taking of plain
District Court, N.D. New York · 1963-12-30 · Published · cited 1× · 226 F. Supp. 904; 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 579; 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9605
BRENNAN, District Judge. Plaintiff, by its amended complaint, sues to recover from the defendants some $50,000., plus interest on account of federal income, withholding, unemployment and social security taxes, assessed against defendants covering a time period from 1953 to 1957. The original answer, which is assumed is to stand as the answer to the amended complaint, sets up a fifth and sixth
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 2008-08-27 · Published · cited 10× · 394 B.R. 292; 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2219; 2008 WL 4000819
394 B.R. 292 (2008) In re Susan Nora BANNER, Debtor. The Cadle Company, Movant v. Susan Nora Banner and Roberta Napolitano, Chapter 7 Trustee, Respondents. Susan Nora Banner, Movant v. The Cadle Company, First Deposit National Bank and Moodus Lumber and Coal Co., Respondents. No. 07-30866 (LMW). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut. August 27, 2008.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2014-02-24 · Published · cited 0× · 134 S. Ct. 1359; 188 L. Ed. 2d 310; 82 U.S.L.W. 3492; 571 U.S. 1204; 2014 WL 318444; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 1441
Case below, 734 F.3d 1095.Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.