Cases

*729MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS GEORGE C. HANKS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Defendant Charles Devon Fulton, Sr. (“Fulton”) Motion To Suppress The Fruits of the War-rantless Seizure of his Cellphone (“Motion”)(Dkt. 104). The Motion has been fully-briefed.1

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard L. Fulton appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Fulton’s original criminal judgment specifically found him responsible for ov

IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Adrian D. FULTON, Airman First Class U.S. Air Force, Appellant No. 00-0412 Crim. App. No. 33568 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Argued November 14, 2000

OPINION OF THE COURT SPISAK, Senior Judge: A military judge convicted the appellant, in accordance with his pleas, of assault with a dangerous weapon and willfully discharging a firearm. Articles 128 and 184, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 928, 934. His approved sentence consists of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 20 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-l. The app

960 F.Supp. 479 (1997) UNITED STATES of America, v. Alicia FULTON, Defendant. Criminal No. 95-10244-REK. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. March 18, 1997. *480 John Salsberg, Salsberg & Cunha, Boston, MA, for Wanda Zani. *481 Miriam Conrad, Office of the Federal Defend

SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting): I cannot meaningfiilly distinguish this case from United States v. Dale, 42 MJ 384 (1995). There Judge Cox, writing for the majority, said the following: 8. Notwithstanding the seeming sincerity of Captain Blankinship’s responses on voir dire, we have urged a “liberal” view on granting challenges for cause. See [U.S. v. Bannwa

41 F.3d 1502 U.S.v.Fulton NO. 94-1449 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Sept 28, 1994 Appeal From: E.D.N.Y. 93-cr-1049 1 AFFIRMED.

18 F.3d 935 U.S.v.Fulton* NO. 92-03894 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Feb 22, 1994 1 Appeal From: E.D.La. 2 A

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

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

925 F.2d 1459 U.S.v.Fulton* NO. 90-1558 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. JAN 29, 1991 1 Appeal From: N.D.Tex. 2

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

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

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

Petition for rehearing denied.

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

847 F.2d 836 U.S.v.Fulton NO. 87-1512 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. APR 12, 1988 1 Appeal From: E.D.N.Y. 2 AFFIRMED.

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The court's prior opinion is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted. A jury convicted Charles Fulton, Sr. on four counts of sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy. The most significant issue concerns a long-delayed search of his cellphone. Fulton also makes arguments drawn from the

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: A jury convicted Charles Fulton, Sr. on four counts of sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy. The most significant issue concerns a long-delayed search of his cell phone. Fulton also makes arguments premised on the Confrontation and Grand Jury clauses, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We find no basis to disturb the judgment. W

SMITH, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the judgment of the court and in the majority’s analysis of every *313issue except its conclusion that portions of the lay opinion testimony of officers Gomez and Scartozzi were improperly admitted. The majority holds that much of the lay opinion testimony of both officers was improper because it was not