Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “United States v. Spell”
United States v. Spellpublic domain
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Devon Spell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A ce
United States v. Spell (Daniel R.)public domain
904 F.2d 711 U.S.v.Spell (Daniel R.) NO. 89-30150 United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. JUN 12, 1990 1 Appeal From: W.D.Wash. 2 VACATED.
Spell v. Allegheny Cnty.public domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Spell v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Spell v. United Statespublic domain
510 U.S. 855 Spellv.United States. No. 92-9176. Supreme Court of United States. October 4, 1993. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 4th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 989 F. 2d 496
Grimm v. Spellpublic domain
543 U.S. 999 GRIMMv.SPELL ET AL. No. 04-168. Supreme Court of United States. November 29, 2004. 1 C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 99 Fed. Appx. 881.
Grimm v. Spellpublic domain
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Barry Lawrence Spellpublic domain
PER CURIAM: Appellant challenges his bank robbery sentence, arguing that the district court improperly treated him as a “career offender” under § 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We reverse and remand to the district court for resentencing. I. BACKGROUND A federal grand jury indic
Spell v. Statepublic domain
Graeff, J. On December 11, 2017, George Spell, appellant, was convicted by a jury, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, of several firearm offenses relating to a firearm found in a utility room in an apartment complex and several drug offenses relating to drugs found in the utility room and on appellant's person. The court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 12 years of imprisonme
Spell v. Regents of the University of Californiapublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mark Spell v. John Edwardspublic domain
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 18, 2020 No. 20-30358 Lyle W. Cayce
United States v. Lionel Spell and Stanley Watsonpublic domain
PER CURIAM: Lionel Spell and Stanley Watson appeal from separate judgments of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert W. Sweet, Judge, for distribution of heroin within 1,000 feet of a public school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 845a (1982 &am;
State v. M. Spellpublic domain
CHIEF JUSTICE McGRATH delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 This is an appeal from the Seventh Judicial District Court’s determination that Michael Spell (Spell) was competent to stand trial and that, at the time of the offense, Spell was able to appreciate his behavior and conform to the requirements of the law. We
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Taxpayer David S. Spell appeals the judgment of the district court granting summary enforcement of Internal Revenue Service summonses against his accountant and First Federal of Charleston. The summonses were issued during an investigation of possible income tax fraud. Spell claims, inter alia, that the summonses by the Criminal Invest
Spell v. Louisiana Department of Correctionspublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Spell v. Louisiana Department of Correctionspublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
City of Fayetteville v. Spellpublic domain
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
City of Fayetteville v. Spellpublic domain
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Wilburpublic domain
RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree that there was no violation of the defendants’ due process rights when the *1183government indicted and prosecuted the defendants for violations of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA). See United States v. Baker, 63 F.3
United States v. Winterspublic domain
592 F.Supp.2d 1105 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Nakisha Winfrey WINTERS, Defendant. No. 4:08-cr-00085. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division. January 9, 2009. *1108 Mary C. Luxa, U.S. Attorney's Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff. Sean P. Spellman, Witherwax & Spellman Law PC, W