Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) Vv. ) Criminal Case No. 25-202-2 (RJL) ) BAZILE RICHARDSON, ) ) Defendant. ) ) fi~ MEMORANDUM OPINION August _ ‘1 2025 [Dkt. #20] Defendant Bazile Richardson (“Richardson” or “defendant’”) was arrested in Houston, Texas on July 23, 2025, on one count of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1705. On July 29, 2025, a magistrate judge in the Souther

Appellate Case: 24-6052 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 12, 2025 Chri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal Action No. 23-200-1 (JDB) GARRICK RICHARDSON, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Garrick Richardson is charged by indictment with one count of unlawful firearm possession by a convicted felon, in violation of 18

Case: 22-10697 Document: 00516740049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2023 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 v. Criminal Action No. 21-721 (CKK) HOWARD CHARLES RICHARDSON, Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION (January 27, 2022) Defendant Howard Charles Richardson is charged by indictment with seven felony and

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before HOLIFIELD, CRISFIELD, and LAWRENCE Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Matthew L. RICHARDSON Cryptologic Technician (Collection) Chief Pe

19‐412‐cr United States v. Richardson In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AUGUST TERM 2019 No. 19‐412‐cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. KOLONGI RICHARDSON, Defendant‐Appell

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Kristopher B. RICHARDSON Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201900028 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Tria

U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _________________________ No. 201600366 _________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. XAVIER J. RICHARDSON Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps Appella

ORDER ROBERT G. DOUMAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for David Richardson (“Defendant”) filed by one of Defendant’s counsel, Mary E. Davis. ECF No. 96. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 23, 2013, pursuant to a written plea agreement

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order finding pretrial detention appropriate. However, because Richardson subsequently entered a plea of guilty in the district court, we conclude that his appeal is moot, see Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82, 10

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dillard Derrick Richardson 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). Richardson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Lee Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Richardson, No. 2:06-cr-00010

CCA 20160503. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby, granted on Issues I, II, and III, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

OPINION PER CURIAM: Justin Allan Richardson appeals his conviction and sentence for violating the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SOR-NA”). He raises several constitutional challenges to SORNA and argues that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history. We affirm.1 BACKGROUND

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Defendant Marsha Richardson is charged in an indictment with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Indictment, ECF No. 3.) Pending before the Court is Richardson’s motion to suppress statements that she allegedly made

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Lee Richardson appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to compel and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas McCoy Richardson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion. The order is not ap-*293pealable unless a circuit justice or judge iss

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ Nos. 25-2807, 25-2916 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant v. RICHARDSON DANGLEBEN, JR., a/k/a Richard Dangleben, Jr. ____________ On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgi

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM: Robert Isadore Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion seeking a reduction in his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm