Cases

Case: 18-60497 Document: 00515355768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60497 Marc

OPINION PER CURIAM: Michael D. Barnes appeals his conviction for distribution of controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Reviewing de novo, United States v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d 1023, 1026 (9th Cir.2011), we consider the denial of Barnes’s motion to suppress statements he made to Federal Bureau of In

114 F.3d 1173 U.S.v.Michael Barnes NO. 96-7762 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Apr 17, 1997 Appeal From: D.V.I. ,No.96-cr-00024 1 Affirmed.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Overview Jeremy Barnes is here again, this time because the Supreme Court granted his certiorari petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded his case for reconsideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. - — -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). See Barnes v. United States,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER LORETTA A PRESKA, Chief Judge: Tuere Barnes (“Barnes” or “Defendant”) moves for a new trial pursuant to Fed. *458R.Crim.P. 33. In 2009, a jury convicted Barnes of seven offenses involving racketeering, narcotics distribution, kidnapping, conspiracy to murder, and use of a firearm. Three years later he filed the ins

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Quenetta Barnes appeals the district court’s order denying her request to credit her with intermittent time served during her term of supervised release and apply that credit to her current term of imprisonment following the revocation of her supervised release. We ha

ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 22, 2010. (Doc. 30; Motion). Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed this civil action, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7401 and 7403, to reduce to judgment the federal income tax liability of Defendants, former spouses Judith Barnes and Nathan Genrich. Plaintiff (o

749 F.Supp.2d 1124 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Forrestt G. BARNES, Defendant. Case No. 3:10-CR-065-BLW. United States District Court, D. Idaho. October 28, 2010. *1127 Michael W. Mitchell, U.S. Attorney's Office, Coeur D'Alene, ID, for Plaintiff. Jaime M. Hawk, Federal Defenders of Eastern WA and ID, Spo

GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge: Michael Iverson pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. He now challenges the length of his prison term and some of the conditions of his supervised release. The principal question his appeal raises is whether the Sentencing Guidelines’ obstruction-of-justice enhancement covers false statements made to obtain a

MEMORANDUM ** Elton Leander Barnes appeals his eighteen-month prison sentence imposed upon revocation of two terms of supervised release.1 Barnes argues that the district court impermissibly took into account at sentencing “the need for the sentence imposed ... to provide just punishment for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d

MEMORANDUM ** Michael Trent Barnes appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for cultivating more than 1,000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and criminal forfeiture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Barnes contends that his counsel during the proceedings in the district court had c

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals raise questions about the prerequisites for and consequences of guilty pleas controlled by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Michael and Cheryl Barnes, husband and wife, each pleaded guilty to federal drug offenses after plea bargaining with the government. Mr. Barnes contends that his plea should be vacated b

OPINION KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellee Michael Peppel, former President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of MCSi, Inc. (“MCSi”), conspired with CFO Ira Stanley to falsify MCSi accounting records and financial statements in order to conceal the actual earnings from shareholders, while at the same time la

655 F.3d 1124 (2011) Michelle BARNES, an individual; Patrick Conry, an individual; Blaine Ackley, Petitioners, Port of Portland, Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Ray Lahood, Secretary of Transportation; Federal Aviation Administration; J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; Donna Taylor, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest-Mountain Region; Carol Suomi, Dist

5 F.3d 540NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Anthony Michael BARNES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-30357. United States

ORDER Upon consideration of Kevin A. Barnes, et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

822 A.2d 1090 (2003) Kenneth E. BARNES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 99-CF-809, 00-CO-1227. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted March 27, 2003. Decided May 8, 2003. As Amended June 5, 2003. *1091 William E. Seals, appointed by this court, for appellant. Michael T

On December 14, 2012, filed a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and no judge in regular active service asked for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. * The petition is therefore

LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Kevin Barnes et al. (Barnes) notify the court that the United States Court of Federal Claims has requested that this court dismiss “the entire matter on appeal, without prejudice, and remand to this court for the purpose of addressing all outstanding matters.” We treat Barnes’ notification as a motion to remand. The United States has not responded. On

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct.