Cases

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio Thomas Goode appeals the district court’s order denying the second post-judgment motion Goode filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Becau

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Wayne Goode seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certif

*75 OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the motion of the defendant, Lonnie Jerome Goode, to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Upon consideration of the parties’ papers, the relevant legal authorities, and t

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kelvin Dewitt Goode seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (20

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Goode appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Wayne Goode appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. <

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Preston T. Goode appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Goode’s motion for appointment of counsel and aff

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Preston T. Goode appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Goode’s motion for appointment of counsel and aff

HARTZ, Circuit Judge. A jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found Donald H. Goode guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal he contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him under the jury instructions, which required the firearm he possessed to have “moved from one state to another,” R. Vol. IV at 220

MEMORANDUM ** Kinley Abner Goode, Sr. appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 168-month sentence for sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2242(2)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Goode’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

143 F.Supp.2d 817 (2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Kevin Antonio GOODE, Defendant. Nos. 96-CR-80997-DT, 00-CV-74400-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. January 23, 2001. *818 *819 Mark C. Jones, Asst. U.S. Atty., Flint, MI, for plaintiff. Ke

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 00-2789 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC D. GOODE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Nor

DeCICCO, Chief Judge: A general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members convicted Airman Recruit Goode, contrary to his pleas, of attempted forcible sodomy, unauthorized absence, violation of a lawful general regulation, rape, and rape of a child under the age of 16 in violation of Articles 80, 86, 92, and 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 886, 892, and 920. In accordance with his plea

MEMORANDUM ** We have carefully reviewed the record and determine that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Goode’s sole contention is that the government failed to prove that he intentionally defrauded the victims of his currency swapping scheme because investor participation was solicited by third parties without his direct knowledge. To prove the element of intent in a scheme to defraud,

110 F.Supp.2d 580 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Kevin Antonio GOODE, Defendant. No. 96-CR-80997-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. July 11, 2000. Mark C. Jones, Asst. U.S. Atty., Flint, MI, for plaintiff. Kevin Antonio Goode, McKean, MI, pro per. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIA

948 F.2d 1297 U.S.v.Goode*** NO. 91-7150 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. NOV 06, 1991 1 Appeal From: S.D.Ala. 2 AFFIRMED.

781 F.Supp. 704 (1991) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Paul GOODE, Defendant. No. 90-1247-C. United States District Court, D. Kansas. December 17, 1991. *705 Stephen K. Lester, U.S. Attorney's Office, Wichita, Kan., for plaintiff. Calvin L. McMillan, Kaplan & McMillan, Wichita, Kan., for defendant.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JENKINS, Chief Judge. After a trial on July 18 and 19, 1990, a jury convicted defendant Robert Neil Goode of one count, under 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)(1), of using extortionate means to collect an extension of credit. On July 25, 1990, Goode moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion asserted, without elaboration,

Affirmed Anderson