Cases

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before STEPHENS, COGLEY, and DEERWESTER Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Jason P. MATHIS Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine C

SMITH, Chief Judge. Richard Mathis challenges the 80-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, *906in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e). He spec

JUDGMENT On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of this court in United States v. Mathis, 786 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2015) (“Mathis I”), holding that “[bjecause the elements of Iowa’s burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary, Mathis’s convictions under that law cannot give rise to an ACCA [ (Armed Career Criminal Act) ] sentence.” Mathis v. United States, —

ORDER ROBERT W. PRATT, Judge, U.S. DISTRICT COURT Before the Court is Defendant Jacob William Mathis’s pro se motion filed on November 4, 2016, requesting this Court to terminate his remaining term of supervised release. Clerk’s No. 48. The Government filed a response in opposition to the motion on November 8, 2016, and a supplemental response at this Court’s request on December 16, 2016. Clerk’s Nos. 5

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrance Gerard Mathis appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se motions to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Mathis, No. 2:05-cr-00082-AWA-JEB-5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No. 11-100 (RJL) FILED JUN222015 Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the Dlstrict of Columbia V. DARLEN E MATHIS-GARDN ER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPIN lON AND ORDER June 2015 [#21] This case comes before this Court on remand from our Court of Appeals for reconsideration of defendant Darlene Mathis-Gardner’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge This case comes before this Court on remand from our Court of Appeals for reconsideration of defendant Darlene Mathis-Gardner’s Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c) [Dkt. #21] (“Def.’s Mot.”). Upon consideration of our Circuit’s decision, the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, a

wl UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Piainuff, Criminal Action N0. 97-334-1 (CKK) V~ civil A¢rion N0. 09-708 (CKK) EDDIE J. MATHIS, F l L E D UCT * 5 2009 Petitioner. MEMORANDUM OPINION (October 5, 2009) NANCY MAYER WH|TTINGTON, CLERK U.S. D|STR|CT COURT 'l`his matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Eddie J . Mathis’ second [418] Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In response, the Govemment

660 F.Supp.2d 27 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eddie J. MATHIS, Petitioner. Criminal Action No. 97-334-1(CKK). Civil Action No. 09-708(CKK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. October 5, 2009. *28 Eddie J. Mathis, pro se. MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District

653 F.Supp.2d 806 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey Lynn MATHIS, Jr., Defendant. No. 3:08-CR-90. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Knoxville. August 31, 2009. *809 Hugh B. Ward, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiff. Kelly S. Johnson, Knoxville, TN, for Defendant.

PER CURIAM: Jonathan Joseph Mathis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

503 F.3d 150 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Eddie J. MATHIS, Appellant. No. 05-3129. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued September 7, 2007. Decided October 9, 2007. *151 Jenifer Wicks argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Elizabeth H. Danello, A

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs by the parties and oral arguments of counsel. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(b). Walter Mathis appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion to vaca

PER CURIAM: * Appellate counsel for Jerel Mathis 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). Mathis has not responded. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, cou

377 F.Supp.2d 640 (2005) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Harold MATHIS, Defendant. No. 3:05-00042. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. July 8, 2005. *641 Ellen Bowden McIntyre, Office of the United States Attorney, Nashville, TN, for USA, Plaintiff. J. Robin McKinney, Jr., Kweller, McK

LUCERO, Circuit Judge. At issue in this case are several claims of error regarding the issuance of a search warrant, which include the sufficiency and reliability of an affidavit containing multiple layers of hearsay as a basis for the search warrant. The district court rejected the defendant’s arguments, including that the warrant improperly relied upon unreliable and stale h

MEMORANDUM ** Dontae Eugene Mathis appeals the sentence imposed after his entering of a guilty plea for the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mathis objected prior to sentencing to certain paragraphs included within the presentencing report. The paragraphs contained allegations of past criminal behavior which Mathis controverted. F

405 F.Supp.2d 1101 (2005) 2005 SD 24 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MATHIS IMPLEMENT, INC., a South Dakota Corporation, formerly d/b/a Oak Forest Industries Trust, a/k/a Mathis Implement Trust; Richard Mathis, Leona Mathis, Todd Mathis, and Scot Mathis, as Co-Trustees of the Mathis Family Trust, a South Dakota Trust; and Doyle D. Mathis, Eldora A. Mathis, James Mathis, Tom Mathis, Ann Martinson and Lynn Larson, as

125 F.3d 852 U.S.v.Mathis* NO. 97-40187 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Aug 29, 1997 Appeal From: E.D.Tex. ,No.696CR456 1 Affirmed.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge: Defendant Ronald E. Mathis (a/k/a “Romeo”) was convicted of multiple drug counts and received a life sentence without parole. On appeal, he alleges that the government *1579 violated his right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., <