Cases

McHUGH, Circuit Judge. *900 This case forces us to decide whether assault resulting in serious bodily injury, 18 U.S.C. § 113 (a)(6), is a crime of violence under

CCA 20160335 DAILY JOURNAL Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

CCA 20160335 DAILY JOURNAL Interlocutory Orders Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to September 13, 2017.

ORDER JAMES C. DEVER III, Chief Judge." On December 11, 2014, the court held a pretrial conference and set this, matter for trial for April 13, 2015 [D.E. 49]. On April 5, 2015, Harry C. Mann (“Mann” or “defendant”) filed a motion for an order directing the United States (“government”) to produce to this court for in camera review the criminal history records of the witnesses it intends to call at trial to

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. A New Mexico grand jury charged Clay O’Brien Mann with eight counts, including three 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violations, arising from .his shooting three people on an Indian reservation. He appeals his sole § 924(c) conviction, which arose from his assault and shooting of Paula Nez. As with the other two § 924(c) counts, the government charged that Mann had

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman CHRISTIAN R. MANN United States Air Force ACM 38444 07 MAY 2014 Sentence adjudged 17 July 2013 by GCM convened at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahom

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION JAMES A. PARKER, Senior District Judge. On July 26, 2013, Defendant, Clay O’Brien Mann, moved to arrest judgment on two convictions that resulted from his jury trial.1 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ARREST JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 119) (Motion to Arrest). Defendant seeks relief from convictions of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 1

CCA 38124. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 7, 2013.

MEMORANDUM ** In these consolidated appeals, Christopher Lee Mann appeals from the consecutive 44-month and 24-month sentences imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing. *542Mann contends that the district court procedurally erred

592 F.3d 779 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Eric MANN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-3041. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued February 18, 2009. Decided January 20, 2010. *780 Gary T. Bell, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appelle

PER CURIAM: Robert Cy Mann appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for correction of sentence filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 8582 (West 2005). We review the denial of a motion to modify a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d 481, 483 (4th Cir.1995). Our review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of relief. We affirm the district court’s ord

WIENER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the majority’s opinion in all respects, except for Section III.A.(3) — the section that reverses all but one of Mann’s Hobbs Act convictions. As to those reversals, I respectfully dissent because I disagree with (1) the majority’s willingness to characterize Mann’s challenge as one of insufficient evid

ORDER ROBERT H. HENRY, Circuit Judge. Steven Lynn Mann, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief in his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Mann also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny his request

PER CURIAM: Randolph P. Murrell, appointed appellate counsel for Keith Devon Mann in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief 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 in

PER CURIAM: Robert Cy Mann seeks to appeal the district court’s orders of February 17, 2005, and April 22, 2005, denying his motions to reconsider. The orders, which derive from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004).

MEMORANDUM ** Joe Marion Mann appeals from his conviction, after a bench trial, for mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Mann contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that his letter constituted a true threat. We disagree. A statement constitutes a true threat if

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge. On June 19, 1998, Detris Larae Mann and three co-conspirators robbed a bank in Elbridge, Tennessee. Prior to the armed robbery itself, Mann assisted in the acquiring of the weapons used in the commission *425of the offense. Mann was to be the getaway driver; however, the three co-eonspirators were not able to meet Mann at the agreed-upon meet

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 99-1965 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. VINCENT E. MANN, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Paul

OPINION OF THE COURT SCHLEGEL, Judge: The appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of members at Shaw Air Force Base (AFB), South Carolina. Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of failing to obey a lawful order of a superior, willful dereliction of duty, presenting a false claim, and fraternization in violation of Articles 90, 92, 132, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 890, 892, 932, and 93

TACHA, Circuit Judge. A jury acquitted David Kee Mann on one count of aggravated sexual abuse and convicted him on another similar count. During the trial, the court allowed R.K. to testify pursuant to. Federal Rule of Evidence 414. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court should have excluded R.K’s testimony because, inter alia, its probative value was substantially o