Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : v. : Criminal Action No.: 25-00021 (RC) : JOSEPH KNIGHT, : Re Document No.: 14 : Defenda

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-962 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00127- v. CDS-BNW-1 BARRY RAY KNIGHT, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from

U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _________________________ No. 201700362 _________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. JERRY G. KNIGHT Electronics Technician Nuclear Power Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roy Knight appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) 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 v. Knight, No. 3:03-cr-00163-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. July 6, 2016). We dispense w

CCA 20121152. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to April 8, 2015.

ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief Judge. AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of the sentencing mem-oranda submitted by defendant Zachary Adam Knight (“Knight”) and counsel for the government, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, and on the record during Knight’s sentencing on June 29, 2015, it is ORDERED that Knight’s objection to paragraph 26 of the

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Luis Knight-Castillo 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Knight-Castillo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

OPINION AND ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III, Chief Judge. Currently before the Court are Defendant K. Vaughn Knight’s motion (Doc. 184) for acquittal or for a new trial and brief in support (Doc. 185), the Government’s response in opposition (Doc. 191), and Knight’s reply (Doc. 193). On November 18, 2013, a jury found Knight guilty of all eight counts charged in the fourth superseding indictment (Doc

CCA 38083. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 13,2014.

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge. On June 27, 2007, Darryl Knight pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession with intent to distribute fifty (50) or more grams of cocaine base and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. This Court subsequently sentenced Knight to 121 m

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lloyd Preston Knight seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) 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) (2006). A ce

CCA 38083. On consideration of Appellant’s motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review without prejudice and motion to attach consent to withdraw case still subject to service court review, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

09-5195-cr (L) United States v. Knight 1 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4 5 August Term 2011 6 7 8 (Argued: September 27, 2011 Decided: February 1, 2012) 9 Errata Filed: February 6, 2012 10 11 Nos. 09-5195-cr (L), 09-5198-cr (con), 09-5336-cr (con) 12 13

659 F.3d 1285 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton A.D. KNIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-3087. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. November 1, 2011. *1286 Howard Pincus, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Raymond P. Moore, Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Office of the Fed

09-5195-cr (L) United States v. Knight 1 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4 5 August Term 2011 6 7 8 (Argued: September 27, 2011 Decided: February 1, 2012) 9 10 11 Nos. 09-5195-cr (L), 09-5198-cr (con), 09-5336-cr (con) 12 13 _____________________________________ 14 15

ORDER In 2006, Demond Knight pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and 24 months’ supervised release. Knight left prison in May 2008 and began serving his term of supervision, but he soon thereafter violated the conditions of his release. Knight’s probation officer finally petitioned for revocation in May 2009, but Knight absconded and was not caught for a

CONSENT FOR |V|OD|F|CAT|ON OF SUPERV|SED RELEASE/PROBAT|ON Uf\nTED STATEs DISTRICT CouRT roche F I L E D District of`Columbia SEP 1 7 2010 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of columbia UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ` _ , 01-cR-00016-01 VS- ) Criminal No. Nle|vin T. Knight § Defendant ) CONSENT 'I`O MODIFY PROBATlON/SUPERVISED RELEASE The parties agree the defendant's conditions of supervised release/probation should be modified and being no objection thereto, lT lS R

606 F.3d 171 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shonitha Lynette KNIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-4282. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: March 26, 2010. Decided: June 4, 2010. *172 ARGUED: Ann Loraine Hester, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc., Charlot

613 F.3d 1172 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael Lee KNIGHT, Appellant. No. 09-3297. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: April 15, 2010. Filed: July 29, 2010. Michael C. Dwyer, AFPD, St. Louis, MO, for appellant. Tracy Berry, AUSA, St. Louis, MO, for appellee. Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTO

OPINION PER CURIAM. Carl Anthony Knight appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which denied his motion for reduction of sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because no substantial question is presented by the appeal, we will grant Appellee’s motion for summary action, and will affirm the District Court’s judgment.