Cases

Saris, C.J. *174INTRODUCTION Defendant Adilson Barbosa moves to dismiss the indictment charging him with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Relying on Pereira v. Sessi

SELYA, Circuit Judge. *65 This appeal resembles a play in two acts. The first act deals with whether the district court erred in refusing to order a pretrial hearing to test the sufficiency of the probable cause allegations undergirding an arrest warrant. The second act deals with whether the d

OPINION PER CURIAM. Luis Humberto Barbosa, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s denial of his (1) 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence, (2) request for an extension of the time to reply to the Government’s opposition to that motion, and (3) motion for the production of certain documents. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

OPINION PER CURIAM. Luis Humberto Barbosa, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s denial of his (1) 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence, (2) request for an extension of the time to reply to the Government’s opposition to that motion, and (3) motion for the production of certain documents. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

MEMORANDUM ** Martin Barbosa-Flores appeals from a sentence imposed following his guilty plea *827to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). Barbosa-Flores, who filed his brief with this court before the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.E

PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed appellate counsel for Felipe Barbosa-Torres has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Barbosa-Torres has not responded to his counsel’s motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion

PER CURIAM:* Andres Barbosa-Gil appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Barbosa-Gil complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. Barbosa-Gil thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the maximum term of

51 F.Supp.2d 597 (1999) UNITED STATES of America v. Luis Humberto BARBOSA. No. CRIM. 98-383. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. June 8, 1999. *598 Judy Goldstein-Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., United States Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for U.S. Mark Wilson, Defender Association of Philadelphia, PA, for defe

107 F.3d 24 U.S.v.Barbosa* NO. 95-5370 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Jan 31, 1997 1 Appeal From: S.D.Fla. , No. 90-06123-CR-WJZ 2

25 F.3d 1043 U.S.v.Barbosa* NO. 93-07515 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. June 02, 1994 1 Appeal From: S.D.Tex. 2

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

916 F.2d 709 U.S.v.Barbosa NOS. 90-1182, 88-1282 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. SEP 21, 1990 1 Appeal From: W.D.N.Y. 2 AFFIRMED.

HOWARD, Chief Judge. *127 Appellant Jonathan 1 González-Barbosa appeals his incarcerative sentence of 97 months, claiming that the district court erred in calculating his Criminal History Category under the Sentencing Guidelines, be

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerardo Alva-Barbosa (Alva) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Alva has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant po

MEMORANDUM ** Raul Luna-Barbosa appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sen*691tence imposed for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Luna-Barbosa’s counsel has filed a brief

MEMORANDUM OPINION Arnit P. Mehta, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In late 2015 and early 2016, a series of massive storms devastated the State of Texas, mausing millions of dollars in property damage and, tragically, dozens of casualties. In response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”)—

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Amit P. Mehta, United States District Judge Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of Count IV of their Complaint, which alleged that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) violated the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1), by using unpubl

535 F.2d 658 U. S.v.Barbosa* No. 76-1707 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 6/30/76 1 S.D.Tex. 2 AFFIRMED

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.