Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 22-1111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. YOLANDA HOWARD, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge] Before

UNITED STATES NMCCA No. 202000251 v. Panel 1 Aaron T. HOWARD Special Warfare Operator First Class ORDER (E-6) U.S. Navy Denying Application for Review Applicant Applicant was tried by general court-martial at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, Military Judge Michae

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Magistrate Action No. 20-181 (BAH) MICHAEL HOWARD, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The government seeks review of a

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-4035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOWARD DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17

McHUGH, Circuit Judge. Defendant Ryan Jacob Howard entered a guilty plea on three counts of transportation of stolen property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 . During sentencing, Mr. Howard objected to the recommended restitution award for the second count,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10112 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:18-cr-00319-CRB-1 HOWARD DIXON, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Flaum, Circuit Judge. *705In April 2014, a Verizon store in the Milwaukee area was robbed. Prior to the robbery, witnesses in the store noticed a Mercedes sitting in the parking lot for an extended time. Just before the robber entered through the store's rear door, the Mercedes drove to the back of the store. As the robber fled, the Mercedes sp

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Howard has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Howard has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portion

STATEMENT OF REASON MEMORANDUM ' LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge Defendant William Howard pleaded guilty to distribution of heroin and possession of a firearm as a felon, and I set the case for sentencing. In imposing sentence, the district court must first determine the defendant’s imprisonment range under the guidelines, then make an individualized assessment of the appropriate sentence based on the factors se

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Edward Howard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to *56reconsider its denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. According

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. The district court 1 revoked Howard Patton's term of supervised release after finding that he violated conditions of his release. The court found that Patton failed to notify his probation officer of his part-time residence at his mother's home, associated with a convicted felon, and committed a federal

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2800 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Howard R. Ross, III, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ___________________________ No. 18-2877 ___________________________ United S

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Howard William Halverson pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography after law enforcement officers found that he possessed 1,863 images of child pornography. He appeals only his sentence. He assigns four errors in his sentence. We find no reversible errors and affirm the judgment of the district court. I. Hal

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS Re: Dkt. No. 10 VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge In this case, a highway patrol officer announced he was going to search a suspect’s backpack. That search would have violated the Fourth Amendment, because the officer did not have a warrant to search the backpack, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied at the time the officer

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Gregory Howard appeals from the March 26, 2014, order entered by the district court denying his motion to suppress. Defendant’s motion argued that the warrant to search his residence was not supported by probable cause. After the motion was denied, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute Oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

OPINION MARK R. HORNAK, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements and Physical Evidence, ECF No. 19. Having reviewed Mr. Howard’s Motion along with all filings in support and in opposition thereto, ECF Nos. 22; 30; 49; 51; 55, and having held an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on the Motion on June 11, 2015, the Court denies the Motion for the

HARTZ, Circuit Judge. Defendant Roger Howard pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of money laundering, see id. § 1957, arising from his participation in three mortgage-fraud schemes. His participation included identifying property buyers, arranging for their applications for mortgage loans to ov

CCA 201300346. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to February 12, 2015.

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before R.Q. WARD, J.R. MCFARLANE, K.M. MCDONALD Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NICHOLAS A. HOWARD GUNNERY SERGEANT (E-7), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201

CCA 20120844. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted on the following issue: WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HER SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER INVESTIGATION AND PRESENT VITAL EVIDENCE TO THE MILITARY JUDGE REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF DURESS AS A RESULT OF