Cases

Appellate Case: 23-6186 Document: 110-1 Date Filed: 09/30/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 30, 2025

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Calvin Campbell ("Defendant"), convicted of a felony drug crime in 2007, faces charges that he violated the terms and conditions of supervised release by possessing and trafficking in illegal narcotics. On August 2, 2018, New York State Troopers stopped Defendant driving a black Toyota Venza with illegally tinted wi

Appellate Case: 25-5065 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 28, 2026

Appellate Case: 24-5086 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 5, 2026

CHARLES B. KORNMANN, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Defendant was indicted with four counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child under the age of 12 years, one count for each of the years 2004-2007. Following a detention hearing, the United States Magistrate Judge released defendant on conditions, including the Adam Walsh mandatory conditions of release as required by

CCA 38875. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military

CCA 38906 DAILY JOURNAL Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

MEMORANDUM & ORDER DORA L. IRIZARRY, Chief United States District Judge On November 8, 2016, defendant Ronald Williams (“Williams”) filed a pretrial motion seeking an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 4241, compelling his codefen-dant Leon Campbell (“Campbell”) (hereinafter collectively, “Defendants”) to undergo a criminal responsibility examination.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. The issue in this appeal is whether federal bank robbery by intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is a crime of violence for purposes of the pre-2016 federal Sentencing Guideline provision for career offenders in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). We have held that federal bank robbery by intimidation satisfies the elements clause of the statutory definition of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(

CCA 38875. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to May 18, 2017.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION Robert E. Wier, United States Magistrate Judge Movant, Adrian Campbell, is a federal inmate. DE # 131 (Motion), at 1. On May 18, 2016,1 Campbell filed a pro se2 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as a memorandum of law. See id.; DE # 131-1. The United States responded in opposition. DE # 139 (Response).

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM 38906 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Ryan A. CAMPBELL First Lieutenant (O-2), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ____________

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before D.C. KING, B.T. PALMER, P.D. LOCHNER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JONATHAN A. CAMPBELL LANCE CORPORAL (E-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201600032

MEMORANDUM & ORDER GLASSER, Senior District Judge: Defendant Errol Campbell, an accountant, was convicted of preparing false tax returns for his clients. At trial, evidence that Campbell fabricated a tax return for an undercover agent was offered, under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for the limited purpose of proving knowledge, intent, or lack of mistake. In a post-trial motion seeking a

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Craig Campbell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United S

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge. Defendant Jodia Campbell (“Defendant”) is charged by superseding indictment with four counts of alleged sex-related offenses. (Dkt. 11). By text order dated July 8, 2014, this case was referred' to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A)-(B). (Dkt. 10). Defendant is charged in cou

PER CURIAM: * Carl Timothy Campbell pleaded guilty to a marijuana-trafficking crime and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of that crime. After the presentence report (PSR) was released, Campbell moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he had been misinformed about the likely sentencing range. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Campbell to the statutory maximum sent

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone Robert Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.. 2013) hiotion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

PER CURIAM: Freddy S. Campbell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Campbell, No. 2:05-cr-00120-1 (S.D.W.Va. July 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions ar

ORDER Christopher Campbell argues that the district court erred by inadequately ex*466plaining its decision to impose a 54-month term of reimprisonment following his repeated violations of his supervised release. But because the court explained its decision in light of the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3588(c), we affirm the judgment, but remand for the purpose of cl