Cases

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before CRISFIELD, LAWRENCE, and GASTON, Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Tara E. Hudson Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps

Case: 24-11070 Document: 68-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-11070 FILED December 5, 2

HOWARD, Chief Judge. Jerome Hudson pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession of ammunition by a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Based upon his criminal history he was sentenced as an armed career criminal. *13 See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). On appeal, he cla

PER CURIAM: Thomas Dale, appointed appellate counsel for Vincent Hudson, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals n

CCA S32167. Appellant’s motion to supplement the record is denied.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT [92] OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION “ ‘Lead us not into temptation,’ ” Judge Noonan warned. United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294, 313 (9th Cir.2013) (Noonan, J., dissenting). But into temptation the Government has gone, ensnaring chronically unemployed individuals from poverty-ridde

CCA 37249. On consideration of Appellee’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s order of August 14, 2013, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is denied.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leonard Andre Hudson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 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) (200

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sanchez Hudson appeals the district court’s order granting counsel’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). We have considered Hudson’s argument on appeal and conclude there was no abuse of discretion by the district court. See United States v.

CCA 20090506. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 14, 2012.

CCA 37249. Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNDER ARTICLE 134 AS IT FAILS TO ALLEGE THE THIRD DISTINCTIVE ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134. No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

*BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting): Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

*BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting): Consistent with my views in United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting), and United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (Baker, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.

CCA 201100560. On consideration of the motion filed by Lieutenant Toren Mushovic for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellant and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellant. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

CCA 20090506. Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134 IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CHARGE II REQUIRES THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THOSE SPECIFICATIONS IN APPELLANT’S CONTESTED COURT-MARTIAL. No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

673 F.3d 263 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tory Lamont HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-4948. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: January 25, 2012. Decided: March 7, 2012. *264 ARGUED: Michael Williams Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Frank Dal

CCA 20090506. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 26, 2012.

CCA 37249. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 11, 2011.

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Foster. United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

CCA 37249. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY-DISPOSITIONS this date.]