Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-2292 (CKK) PETER K. NAVARRO, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (February 20, 2024) This matter concerns Defendant’s compliance with this Court’s judgment as it relates to t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) Case No. 22-cr-200 (APM) ) PETER K. NAVARRO,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-2292 (CKK) PETER K. NAVARRO, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 9, 2023) The United States has sued Defendant Peter K. Navarro (“Defendant” or “D

Case: 19-50662 Document: 00516556298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-2292 (CKK) PETER K. NAVARRO, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 28, 2023) Before the Court is Defendant Peter K. Navarro’s (“Defendant” or “Dr. Navarro”) [18] Motio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) Case No. 22-cr-200 (APM) ) PETER K. NAVARRO,

This opinion is subject to revision before publication. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Leo J. NAVARRO AGUIRRE, Airman First Class United States Air Force, Appellant No. 24-0146 Crim. App. No. 40352 Argued February 26, 2025—Decided July 24, 2025 Military Judge:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 22-cr-200 (APM) PETER NAVARRO ) ) Defendant.

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 21-1735 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. HECTOR E. NAVARRO-SANTISTEBAN, A/K/A PEPITO, A/K/A PEPE JR., A/K/A HECTOR E. NAVARRO-SANTIESTEBAN, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon.

Case: 20-40401 Document: 00515808382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 5, 2021

ORDER This is a direct appeal from a resentenc-ing following our remand in United States v. Navarro, 817 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2016). Defendant Salvador Navarro had pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(a)(1). As we explained in our opinion, at sentencing the government reneged on a promise in the plea agreement to recommend a prison term within the guideline range

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Noe Navarro-Jimenez 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). Na-yarro-Jimenez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s b

ELLIS, District Judge. Defendant-Appellant Salvador Guadalupe Navarro (“Navarro”) pleaded guilty to *497and was convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. In the plea agreement, the government and Navarro both agreed to refrain from seeking a departure from the sentencing guidelines and to recommend a

ORDER Salvador Navarro pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 262 months in prison. He has appealed, but his appointed counsel believes the appeal is frivolous and has moved to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Navarro did not respond to counsel’s moti

817 F.Supp.2d 25 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ricardo Gonzalez NAVARRO, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 10-1989 (FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. October 12, 2011. *26 Charles M. Flesch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Francisco Rebollo-Casalduc, Francisco Rebol

608 F.3d 529 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-50365. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 7, 2009. Filed June 11, 2010. *530 Ellis M. Johnston, III, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., for the defendant-

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant Louis Navarro appeals pro se from a June 4, 2007 order of the District Court, granting the government’s petition to enforce an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) summons. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural history of the case, though we revisit key portions of that history here. On March 30, 2006, the IRS issued an administrative summons to Navarro and

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant Jose Navarro, who stands convicted based on a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to import heroin, see 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), appeals the 30-month sentence imposed in his case. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision. 1. Breach of Plea Agreement

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant Jose Navarro, who stands convicted based on a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to import heroin, see 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), appeals the 30-month sentence imposed in his case. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision. 1. Breach of Plea Agreement

*85MEMORANDUM *** Ignacio Navarro appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment for illegal reentry after deportation. Navarro’s motion was based on a collateral challenge to his initial deportation for conviction of an aggravated felony. In 1998, Navarro was convicted of burglary in the first degree in violation of Ca