Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “United States v. Muse”
United States v. Musepublic domain
U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _________________________ No. 201600394 _________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. MYLIC T. MUSE Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
United States v. Musepublic domain
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angela Muse appeals the district court’s order affirming the memorandum opinion and order of the magistrate judge and overruling Muse’s objection to the writ of continuing garnishment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm fo
United States v. Musepublic domain
• Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angela Muse appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion to dismiss the writ of continuing garnishment entered against her. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We grant the motion. We dispense
United States v. Musepublic domain
729 F.Supp.2d 905 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Brady MUSE, Jr., Defendant. Case No. 09-20581. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 2, 2010. *906 Stephen L. Hiyama, U.S. Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff. OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIO
United States v. Musepublic domain
PER CURIAM: Mary Erickson, appointed counsel for Michael Muse in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of the appellant on the ground that the appeal has no arguable merit, and has 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 relat
United States v. Musepublic domain
SUMMARY ORDER Defendants Leo Muse and Darrell Hil-lard appeal from their judgments of conviction entered on February 13, 2008 in the Northern District of New York (Scullin, /.) for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). On appeal, defendants challenge (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’
United States v. Musepublic domain
SUMMARY ORDER Defendants Leo Muse and Darrell Hil-lard appeal from their judgments of conviction entered on February 13, 2008 in the Northern District of New York (Scullin, /.) for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). On appeal, defendants challenge (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’
United States v. Musepublic domain
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5315 RANDALL DWAYNE MUSE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-311-MJG) Argued: March 8, 1996 Decided: May 13, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circu
Muse v. United Statespublic domain
SHOW CAUSE ORDER REBECCA BEACH SMITH, CHIEF JUDGE This matter comes before the court on the Petitioner’s pro se “Motion Under- 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, .or Correct Sentence” (“Motion”), filed by .the Clerk on May 27, 2016. ECF No. 285.1 On March 13, 2014, the Petitioner pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment, which charged the Petitioner with Conspiracy to Distr
United States v. Musepublic domain
844 F.2d 795 U.S.v.Muse** NO. 87-5336 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. MAR 29, 1988 1 Appeal From: S.D.Fla. 2
United States v. Musepublic domain
588 F.2d 824 U. S.v.Muse No. 78-1519, 78-1520 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit 11/20/78 1 D.N.J. AFFIRMED
United States v. Musepublic domain
620 F.2d 290 U. S.v.Muse 79-1877 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit 4/16/80 1 D.N.J. AFFIRMED
Duran v. Musepublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
United States v. Musepublic domain
530 F.2d 965 U. S.v.Muse 75-1930 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit 2/11/76 1 D.N.J. AFFIRMED
United States v. Musepublic domain
486 F.2d 1317 159 U.S.App.D.C. 57 U. S.v.Muse 73-1108 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit 10/26/73 1 D.C.D.C. VACATED IN PART AFFIRMED IN PART
Mathis v. Musepublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Muse v. Georgiapublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
Goodman v. Musepublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Muse v. United Statespublic domain
Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.
Muse v. Muse (In Re Muse)public domain
289 B.R. 619 (2003) In re Cheryl R. MUSE, Debtor. Richard Muse, Plaintiff, v. Cheryl R. Muse, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 02-20925BM, Adversary No. 02-2694-BM. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. March 7, 2003. *620 Martha E. Bailor, Esq., Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff. George T. Snyder, Esq., Stonecipher,