Cases

Memorandum Opinion and Order LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, District Judge. Defendant Phillip Rutherford (“Defendant”) is charged, in the above-captioned indictment, with two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits the *389possession of firearms by persons who previously have been convicted of felonies. Defendant has moved to suppress evide

ORDER Charles Rutherford pleaded guilty to possession of crack with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Because of the amount of crack and his prior drug conviction, he faced a minimum of 10 years imprisonment. See id. at § 841(b)(1)(B). In the plea agreement Rutherford waived his right to challenge the conviction or sentence on direct appeal or in a postcon-viction proceeding, and also promised to coope

ORDER Charles Rutherford pleaded guilty to possession of crack with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Because of the amount of crack and his prior drug conviction, he faced a minimum of 10 years imprisonment. See id. at § 841(b)(1)(B). In the plea agreement Rutherford waived his right to challenge the conviction or sentence on direct appeal or in a postcon-viction proceeding, and also promised to coope

599 F.3d 817 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert William RUTHERFORD, Appellant. No. 09-1421. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: November 19, 2009. Filed: April 2, 2010. *818 William D. Schmidt, AFPD, argued, Scott D. McGregor, AFPD, on the brief, Bismarck, ND, for appellan

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vincent Rutherford appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduc*374tion of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affi

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vincent Rutherford appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduc*374tion of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affi

509 F.3d 791 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jon RUTHERFORD and Judith Bugaiski, Defendants,*792 Wayne County, Movant-Appellant. No. 07-1486. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Submitted: November 27, 2007. Decided and Filed: December 17, 2007.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0486p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee, - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

BOGGS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COOK, J., joined. COLE, J. (pp. 199-200), delivered a separate concurring opinion. OPINION BOGGS, Chief Judge. Defendants Jon Rutherford and Judith Bugaiski were charged with numerous tax violations and conspiracy to defraud investigators from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The United States appeals the district court’s su

MEMORANDUM *** Martin and Nanja Rutherford appeal the district court’s denial of them second motion for new trial. We affirm. *146The district court correctly concluded that the Rutherfords’ 2006 motion was untimely. Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, a defendant has three years from the verdict or finding of guilty to file a motion

756 F.Supp.2d 782 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. RUTHERFORD OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. G-08-0231. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. August 31, 2010. *783 John David Gunter, T. Monique Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Paul Alexander Petty, U.S

MEMORANDUM ** In this case, we again address an appeal by Martin and Nanja Rutherford from their convictions under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7203 *590and 7206(1) for tax evasion. We now affirm their convictions. I. Following a sixteen-day trial, the Rutherfords were convicted of one count of willfully failing to file an inco

323 F.Supp.2d 911 (2004) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Steven RUTHERFORD, Defendant. No. 03-CR-224. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. June 24, 2004. *912 Brian Pawlak, Racine, WI, for Plaintiff. Matt J. Ricci (Ricci), Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant. SENTENCING MEMORANDUM A

PER CURIAM. Bradley Rutherford appeals the district court’s decision not to apply the Sentencing Guidelines’s “safety valve” provision to reduce his offense level. We affirm. Our review de novo leads us to conclude Rutherford failed to meet his § 5C1.2(a)(3) burden to show the offense did not result in serious bodily injury to “any person.” As a result of committing the offense, Rutherford experienced life-t

*575MEMORANDUM * Martin and Nanja Rutherford (“the Rutherfords”) appeal their convictions by a jury for making and filing false income tax returns for 1992, and for failing to file income tax returns for 1993. Specifically, they argue that the district court erred in denying their motions to suppress evidence, in denying their Rule 29 motions for judg

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

104 F.Supp.2d 1190 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Kent RUTHERFORD, Defendant. No. 8:99CR120. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. March 22, 2000. *1191 Russell X. Mayer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff. Clarence E. Mock, III, Johnson, Mock Law Firm, Oakland, NE, for Defendant. <

RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge: Anthony Rutherford received three concurrent life sentences upon his conviction for conspiracy, possession and distribution *901 of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. sections 846 and 841(a)(1). On appeal, he asserts several issues, only three of which we discuss here:

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 23-1904 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL RUTHERFORD a/k/a SQUEAKY, Appellant _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-05-cr-00126