Cases

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before GASTON, HOLIFIELD, and MYERS Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Charles T. BRIGGS Information Technology Chief Petty Officer (E-7), U.S. Navy

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

*520Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted. The case is consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.

This opinion is subject to revision before publication UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Michael J. D. BRIGGS, Lieutenant Colonel United States Air Force, Appellant No. 16-0711 Crim. App. No. 38370 Argued December 4, 2018—

This opinion is subject to revision before publication UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Michael J. D. BRIGGS, Lieutenant Colonel United States Air Force, Appellant No. 16-0711 Crim. App. No. 38370 Argued December 4, 2018—Dec

CCA 38730. On consideration of the issue raised by the Appellant on October 31, 2016, in the separate appendix pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), it is ordered that the petition for grant of review of the above-referenced Grostefon issue is hereby denied. The Court will consider the case only on the issues granted review on October 19, 2016.

CCA 38730. On further consideration of the granted issue, and in view of United States v. Ortiz, 76 M.J. 189 (C.A.A.F. 2017), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before K.J. BRUBAKER, M.C. HOLIFIELD, M.G. MILLER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC L. BRIGGS PRIVATE (E-1), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201500045 SPECIAL

*948Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kyle Morrell Briggs appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to compel the Government to file a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence and his motion for reconsi

MATHESON, Circuit Judge. In 2012, police detained Appellant Nathan Briggs and discovered a handgun in his possession. He was charged with, and pled guilty to, being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). In pleading guilty, Mr. Briggs reserved the right to appeal the district court’s den

MEMORANDUM ** In these consolidated appeals, Glen Ray Briggs appeals from the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for various drug, firearm and escape offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Briggs contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because his Guidelines sentencing range was based on a fictional amount of

12-2988-cr United States v. Briggs 1 2 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 4 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 5 6 August Term, 2012 7 8 (Argued: September 4, 2012 Decided: October 5, 2012) 9 (Amended: October 9, 2012) 10 11

CALABRESI, Circuit Judge: Antonio Briggs stands indicted for his alleged principal role in a multi-count, multi-defendant drug distribution conspiracy. A Third Superseding Indictment charges Briggs with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, 28 grams or more of cocaine base, heroin, MDMA, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and mari

623 F.3d 724 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Ray BRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Ray Briggs, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Ray Briggs, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Ray Briggs, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 09-30108, 09-30111,

Order HUGH B. SCOTT, United States Magistrate Judge. Before this Court are two motions seeking reconsideration or amendment to two discovery Orders entered by this Court (Docket Nos. 291, 293). The first motion (Docket No. 3081) by defendant Damian *625Ard and others joining him2 (hereinafte

OPINION OF THE COURT JACKSON, Senior Judge: In accordance with the appellant’s pleas, a military judge convicted him of one specification of being absent without leave terminated by apprehension, one specification of making a false official statement, and three specifica*649tions of larceny, in violation of Articles 86, 107, and 121, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C

OPINION SLOVITER, Circuit Judge. Syeed Briggs was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit aimed bank robbery (Count 1), two counts of armed bank robbery (Counts 2 and 4), and two counts of aiding and abetting the carrying and use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Counts 3 and 5). After Briggs timely filed a notice of appeal, his appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

OPINION SLOVITER, Circuit Judge. Syeed Briggs was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit aimed bank robbery (Count 1), two counts of armed bank robbery (Counts 2 and 4), and two counts of aiding and abetting the carrying and use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Counts 3 and 5). After Briggs timely filed a notice of appeal, his appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

577 F.Supp.2d 435 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, v. Emerson Vincent BRIGGS, Defendant. Crim. Action No. 08-215 (CKK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 22, 2008. Wendy R. Waldron, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America. Bruce Charles Bishop, Steptoe & Johnson, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Defe