Cases

After the panel opinion was filed on September 28, 2018, a judge in regular active service requested a poll on whether to rehear this appeal en banc. Five judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc; five judges voted against rehearing en banc; one judge is disqualified. Accordingly, the suggestion to rehear the case en banc is denied. Chief Judge Smith, Judge Wollman, Judge Loken, Judge Colloton, and Judge Gruender would rehear the case en

FEDERICO A. MORENO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this case, the Court is faced with a difficult decision. Should the Court allow Defendant James Schneider to retain as local secondary trial counsel Mr. Daniel Rashbaum, an attorney whose firm had previously represented-in a related criminal case-a cooperating Government witness. The Court holds that it should not. In disqualifying Defendant Schneider's

U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _________________________ No. 201700093 _________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. BRETT D. SCHNEIDER Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before J.R. MCFARLANE, K.M. MCDONALD, K.J. BRUBAKER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TYLER J. SCHNEIDER MISSILE TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. NAVY NMCCA 201400324 GENERAL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MONTI L. BELOT, District Judge. Before the court are defendants’ submissions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the government’s responses: Docs. 759, 761, 764, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773.1 Subsequent to receiving the briefs, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the implication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burrage v. United States,

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON COUNT 7 OF THE THIRD SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendant Edward Schneider’s post-trial *1038motion for judgment of acquittal on count seven of the third superseding indictment. The indictment charged Schneide

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendants-Appellants Dr. Stephen and Linda Schneider (the Schneiders) were convicted of several counts of unlawful drug distribution, health care fraud, and money laundering, all arising from their operation of Schneider Medical Clinic. The district court sentenced Dr. Schneider to 360 months’ imprisonment, and Ms. Schneider to 396 months’ imprisonment. The Schneiders appeal their convictions

817 F.Supp.2d 586 (2011) UNITED STATES of America v. Kenneth SCHNEIDER. Criminal Action No. 10-29. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. September 21, 2011. *590 Michelle Morgan-Kelly, U.S. Attorney's Office, Daniel A. Velez, Vineet Gauri, United States Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff. Antonia

594 F.3d 1219 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Steven J. SCHNEIDER; Linda K. Schneider, also known as Linda Atterbury, doing business as Schneider Medical Clinic, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Nos. 09-3028, 09-3045. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. February 8, 2010. *1221

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 03-30527 Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  D.C. No. CR-01-00110-MFM PAUL H. SCHNEIDER, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court

ORDER Judges Lay and Wallace have voted to grant the petition for rehearing; Judge Tallman has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Tallman has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Lay and Wallace would so recommend. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35. <

289 F.Supp.2d 328 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, v. Jeffrey SCHNEIDER, Defendant. No. 02-CR-0128 (DRH). United States District Court, E.D. New York. November 3, 2003. *329 *330 Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Central Islip, NY, by Richard P. Donoghu

ORDER Daniel A. Schneider appeals the sentence imposed upon his conviction. The parties have expressly waived oral argument, and upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). On August 20, 2001, Schneider was charged by information with one count of inducing travel in interstate commerce in execution of a scheme to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting. Because I cannot distinguish this case from United States v. Cortes, 299 F.3d 1030, 1037-39 (9th Cir.2002), I dissent. I would vacate the sentence and remand for reconsideration of whether Schneider should receive the benefit of Guideline section 3E1.1, see Application Notes 1(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f), and if not, to allow the district court to make a clear st

157 F.Supp.2d 1044 (2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Heath Damon SCHNEIDER, Defendant. No. CR00-4029MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. August 29, 2001. *1045 *1046 United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa, for Plaintiff U.S.

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Lawrence Schneider was convicted on multiple counts of mail and wire fraud and now appeals, presenting two difficult issues. One concerns the. district court’s refusal to allow Schneider’s expert medical testimony proffered as pertinent to his state of mind; the other relates to the denial of Schneider’s new trial motion based on jury-questionnaire informati

USCA1 Opinion UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1281 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v.

59 F.3d 1245 U.S.v.Schneider* NO. 93-4230 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. June 12, 1995 1 Appeal From: S.D.Fla., No. 90-00907-CR-KLR 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOUIS SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 20-260 (FYP) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Louis Schneider and Regina English bring this lawsuit challenging a decision by the United States Departm

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1112 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Douglas James Schneider Defen