Cases

Case: 19-10813 Document: 00516193107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 7, 2022

ORDER Thomas Bates, convicted in federal court in 1992, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion challenging orders pertaining to his federal pretrial detention. Because the district court correctly decided that it did not have authority to consider the motion, we affirm. Bates was a high-ranking member in the El Rukn organization, a notorious Chicago street gang involved i

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before F.D. MITCHELL, J.A. FISCHER, D.C. KING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSEPH D. BATES SERGEANT (E-5), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201400447

*81 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SARIS, District Judge. Defendant, Harold Bates, charged with trafficking in methylone,1 moves to sup-pressvthe contents of four postal parcels, statements made regarding those parcels, and items found at his residence on December 7, 2013. The Court held evidentia-ry hearings on February 12,

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darren Bates appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (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. Bates, No. 3:08-cr-0

584 F.3d 1105 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dantae BATES, Appellant. No. 08-3331. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: May 15, 2009. Filed: October 20, 2009. *1106 Jill M. Johnston, AFPD, of Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellant. Robert L. Teig, AUSA, of Cedar Rapids, IA, fo

750 F.Supp.2d 342 (2010) UNITED STATES of America v. Anthony BATES, Defendant. Criminal No. 09-10357-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. November 5, 2010. *343 William W. Fick, Federal Public Defender Offices, District of Massachusetts, Floor Boston, MA, for Defendant. Robert E. Richardson, United States A

614 F.3d 490 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rickey BATES, Appellant. No. 09-2933. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: April 13, 2010. Filed: July 26, 2010. *491 Eric C. Bohnet, argued, Indianapolis, IN, for appellant. Dean J. Sauer, AUSA, argued, St. Louis, MO, for app

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0013p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee, - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

552 F.3d 472 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Steven BATES (06-2458) and Walter John Bates (06-2460), Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 06-2458, 06-2460. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: December 10, 2008. Decided and Filed: January 12, 2009. *473 ARGUED: Martin J. Be

ORDER Lelyn T. Bates pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced according to the Guidelines range in effect at that time. Two things happened since Bates’ conviction that give rise to the issue in this appeal. First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) held that to avoid constitutional problems, the Guidelines must be adv

ORDER Lelyn T. Bates pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced according to the Guidelines range in effect at that time. Two things happened since Bates’ conviction that give rise to the issue in this appeal. First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) held that to avoid constitutional problems, the Guidelines must be adv

561 F.3d 754 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rickey BATES, Appellant. No. 08-1589. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: December 9, 2008. Filed: April 3, 2009. *755 Kevin L. Schriener, argued, St. Louis, MO, Eric C. Bohnet, Indianapolis IN, on the brief, for appellant. D

MEMORANDUM ** Herbert A. Bates appeals from the district court's decision following limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Bates contends that his se

PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and being sentenced to the ten-year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2), 1 defendant appeals from his conviction on the grounds that (1) his guilty plea

MEMORANDUM ** Roger Manu Bates appeals from the 198-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss the appeal.

MEMORANDUM ** 1. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 are “federal laws of nationwide applicability that make actions criminal wherever committed.” United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486, 498 (9th Cir.1994). 2. The district court reasonably disbelieved defendants’ explanations about why they pled guilty, United States v. Snider

MEMORANDUM * Clifford Bates appeals his sentence, which was reaffirmed on a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005). Bates had no constitutional or statutory right to allocute during the limited remand. See United States v. Silva, 2006 WL - (9th Cir.). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not

MEMORANDUM * Clifford Johnny Bates appeals from his jury conviction and sentence for importing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 and possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He argues that his conviction was based on the admission of “other crimes” evidence. He also complains of the delayed disclosure of an investigative report

MEMORANDUM** Defendant Christopher Bates challenges his conviction and 57-month sentence for conspiracy to defraud the government by impeding the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to engage in mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and conspiracy to engage in money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1956(h). We affirm. 1