Cases

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Darnell Pickett appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Dax Evan Pickett has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 886 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). Pickett has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record refl

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Darnell Pickett appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on the Fair Sentencing Act and Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

612 F.3d 147 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gordon PICKETT, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 09-0683-cr. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: June 23, 2010. Decided: July 20, 2010. Katherine Alfieri, New York, NY, for defendant-appellant. *148 Winston M. Paes, Assistant Uni

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment only: Pickett’s sole argument on appeal is that there was no “border crossing” within the meaning of Stone because he moved to shore from a federal enclave as defined in OCSLA and government agents were aware that he had not made an intervening stop in a foreign country. Confronting this argument requires, as a first step, that we dete

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Neil Pickett seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a cert

ROGERS, Circuit Judge, concurring. It has taken many years, but the court finally has concluded that it is authorized to hold, and does hold, that a district court, in sentencing a defendant, may properly take into account the fact that the 100-to-1 ratio embedded in the Sentencing Guidelines for crack-to-powdered cocaine offenses bears no meaningful relationship to a defendant’s culpability.

209 F.Supp.2d 84 (2002) UNITED STATES of America v. James J. PICKETT, Defendant. No. CR.02-014 (TPJ). United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 7, 2002. Robert C. Bowman, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. *85 Harold Douglass Martin, II, Eli Gottesdiener, Gottesdiener Law Office, Washingto

ROGERS, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the holding that the judgment of conviction must be reversed because the indictment failed to inform Pickett of the charges against him by omitting an essential element of the offense. I write separately regarding the government’s alternative argument that the error was harmless. The court states that we need not consider whether harmless error review applies,

152 F.3d 933 U.S.v.Pickett** NO. 97-2125 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. July 22, 1998 Appeal From: M.D.Fla. ,No.9500238CRORL22 1 Reversed in part, Vacated in part.

874 F.2d 819 U.S.v.Pickett** NO. 87-7795 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. APR 14, 1989 1 Appeal From: M.D.Ala. 2

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: The district court granted Albert Pickett relief on a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, ruling that, following changes in constitutional law regarding the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), Pickett no longer qualified as a

862 F.2d 877 U.S.v.Pickett** NO. 87-7616 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. NOV 09, 1988 1 Appeal From: S.D.Ala. 2

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Same case below, 598 F.3d 231.

521 F.2d 813 *U. S.v.Pickett 75-2118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 10/2/75 1 E.D.La. 2 AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED A

530 F.2d 971 U. S.v.Pickett 75-1987 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fourth Circuit 12/3/75 1 E.D.N.C. AFFIRMED