Cases

OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on four pending post-trial motions in the above criminal action. This criminal case arose out of the alleged falsification of documents relating to Delaware Bay oysters harvested, sold, and/or purchased by the respective defendants. The following defendants filed motions for judgment notwithstandi

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chad Allen Reeves seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Under the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378, Congress has provided for federal criminal penalties premised upon the violation of various state, tribal, foreign and federal fish and wildlife protection laws. It is, for example, a federal crime to knowingly sell or purchase, in interstate commerce, fish or wildlife that has been t

591 F.3d 77 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lamont REEVES, Defendant-Appellant. Docket Nos. 08-2966-cr (L), 08-2975-cr (con). United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: May 27, 2009. Decided: January 7, 2010. *78 Darrell B. Fields, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY, for

ROGERS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part: In United States v. Henry, 557 F.3d 642, 646 (D.C.Cir.2009), the court held with regard to the enhancement of a sentence for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, that: [Although a court ordinarily may rely on the willing commission of conduct that, objectively viewed, tends to obstruct justice, such-an objective stan

PER CURIAM: Sylvia A. Irvin, appointed counsel for Eric Leon Reeves in this appeal from the district court’s denial of Reeves’s pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 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

08-2966-cr (L), 08-2975-cr (con) United States v. Reeves 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 _____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2008 6 7 (Argued: May 27, 2009 Decided: January 7, 2010) 8 9 Docket Nos. 08-2966-cr (L), 08-2975-cr (con) 10 11

PER CURIAM: Sylvia A. Irvin, appointed counsel for Eric Leon Reeves in this appeal from the district court’s denial of Reeves’s pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 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

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge, concurring. I write separately to emphasize what I see as unnecessarily broad language explaining the “constructive entry” doctrine. Constructive entry is deemed to have occurred where police, although they do not cross the threshold and physically enter a home as required by Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), use excessive

*109Judge BAKER delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant was tried before a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. In accordance with her pleas, she was convicted of disobeying a general regulation (three specifications) in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justi

GIERKE, Chief Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part): The bottom line is that I agree with the majority as to both reasoning and result to affirm only Appellant’s guflty plea to Charge I and its sole specification. Therefore, I concur in part. But with respect to the three Child Pornography Preventi

ORDER Paul R. Reeves, represented by counsel, appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence. The parties have expressly waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). In November 2002, Reeves pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)(i) and (iii), and he agreed to the forfeiture of personal

MEMORANDUM * Defendant-Appellant Gregory Alan Reeves appeals from the district court’s judgment, following his plea of guilty to one count each of mail and wire fraud. Reeves contends that his guilty plea is invalid because the district court failed to establish a factual basis for his plea. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) requires the district court, before entering judgmen

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Russell Reeves appeals his sentence, arguing that the government breached the plea agreement and that the district court improperly enhanced the sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. I. Reeves and his codefendants defrauded elderly persons by persuading them to tur

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1548 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Deoman Reeves De

56 F.3d 1391 U.S.v.Reeves* NO. 94-8040 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. May 15, 1995 1 Appeal From: M.D.Ga., No. 92-00037-CR-MAC-DF 2

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

PER CURIAM: This case is before us on an appeal by the United States pursuant to Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862. Appellee was charged with a single specification of wrongfully committing indecent acts with a child. The military judge granted the defense motion to dismiss this charge on the basis that the Government failed to bring the case to a speedy disposition. We find that the military judge erre

798 F.Supp. 1459 (1992) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Yusuf D. REEVES, Defendant. No. CR-92-124-JLQ. United States District Court, E.D. Washington. July 9, 1992. *1460 *1461 Ronald W. Skibbie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff. Michael J. Kennedy, Asst. Federal D

963 F.2d 370 U.S.v.Reeves* NO. 91-2575 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. May 08, 1992 1 Appeal From: S.D.Tex. 2