Cases

ORDER MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, District Judge. AND NOW, this _ 16th _ day of July, 2015, after consideration of Defendant Joseph Dougherty’s post-trial Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or for a New Trial (ECF 375) and his Reply brief in support of the motion (ECF 525), and after consideration of the Government’s Response and Sur-Reply briefs (ECF 350, 515, and 529), and after consideration of bot

MEMORANDUM RE SENTENCING OF DEFENDANTS BAYLSON, District Judge. “All punishment is for Example’s Sake” — Francis Bacon1 Deterrence of defendants, and others, is a major goal in the imposition of criminal sentencing; and is, without question, a most important sentencing factor in these cases. 1. Introduction Th

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before K.J. BRUBAKER, M.C. HOLIFIELD, T.P. BELSKY Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL L. DOUGHERTY LANCE CORPORAL (E-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201300060 GENERAL

CCA 201300060. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 19, 2014.

541 F.Supp.2d 734 (2008) UNITED STATES of America v. Donald DOUGHERTY. Criminal Action No. 07-361. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 2, 2008. *735 Anita D. Eve, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America. MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

*1515 PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.RApp.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered subm

961 F.2d 1569 U.S.v.Dougherty (Pamela) NO. 91-1282 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Apr 08, 1992 Appeal From: E.D.Pa., Reed, J. 1 AFFIRMED.

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

774 F.Supp. 1181 (1989) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John F. DOUGHERTY, Defendant. No. 89-CR-9-C. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. June 6, 1989. *1182 Jeffrey Anderson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Madison, Wis., for plaintiff. Charles W. Giesen, Madison, Wis., for defendant. ORDER CRAB

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Pro se plaintiff Keith Dougherty (“Plaintiff’), who is a resident of Pennsylvania, has filed a lengthy complaint that recites block quotes from various court opinions in seriatim and appears to challenge the rulings of numerous judges assigned to various lawsuits that Plaintiff previously f

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

Case: 24-1458 Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DOUGHERTY ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2024-1458, 2024-1838 ______________________ Appeals from th

827 F.2d 773 U.S.v.Dougherty (Timothy) NO. 86-5220 United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. AUG 27, 1987 1 Appeal From: C.D.Cal. 2 AFFIRMED.

923 F.2d 860 U.S.v.Dougherty (Frank Paul, Jr.) NO. 90-5173 United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit. DEC 12, 1990 1 Appeal From: D.N.D. 2 AFFIRMED.

588 F.2d 823 U. S.v.Dougherty No. 78-1453 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit 11/20/78 1 E.D.Pa. AFFIRMED

537 F.2d 1142 U. S.v.Dougherty*# No. 76-1072 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 8/17/76 1 S.D.Tex. 2 AFFIRM

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.

503 F.2d 1400 U. S.v.Dougherty 74-1369 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit 9/5/74 1 D.N.J. AFFIRMED

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge: Seven of the so-called “D.C. Nine” bring this joint appeal from convictions arising out of their unconsented entry into the Washington offices of the Dow Chemical Company, and their destruction *80of certain property therein. Appellants,1 along with two other defendants who subsequently entered pleas of nolo contende