Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 17-243 (BAH) MARK J. STEPHENS, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Mark J. Stephens has filed pro se t

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. At issue is whether the defendant’s sentence violates Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague. Because the defendant would receive the same sentence even without the residual clause, no reversible error occurred. After pleading guilty

U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _________________________ No. 201500397 _________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. TRAVONTA A. STEPHENS Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

ORDER Antonyo Stephens moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion, ruling that Stephens was ineligible for a reduced sentence because his plea agreement specified a 144-month prison term that was not based on a guidelines section later amended by the Fair Sentencing Act. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C). Stephens appealed, bu

PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Deshon Stephens appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stephens a reduction of sentence on the basis of public safety. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Stephens, No. 3:

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Deshon Stephens appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

SMITH, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in the conclusion that David Stephens failed to establish that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006’s imposition of curfew and electronic monitoring is facially unconstitutional. However, I write separately because I arrive at that destination by a different route. Before the district court, Stephens successfully challenged the constitutionality

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Deshon Stephens appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

670 F.Supp.2d 1145 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Robert L. STEPHENS, Jr., Buffalo Brewing Company, Inc., First Citizens Bank, and Iva Della Stephens, Defendants. Robert L. Stephens, Jr., Third Party Plaintiff, v. Montana General Corp., Third Party Defendant. No. CV-03-81-BLG-RFC. United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division. October 1

669 F.Supp.2d 960 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. David STEPHENS, Defendant. No. CR09-3037-MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division. November 17, 2009. *962 Mark A. Tremmel, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff. Michael L. Smart, Federal Public Defender's Office, Sioux

BAKER, Judge, with whom EFFRON, Chief Judge, joins (concurring in the result): Although I do not agree with the Court’s conclusion that there was no error, I agree that Appellant was not prejudiced. For that reason, I concur in the result. As the Court notes, this case is distinguished from United States v. Carr, 25 M.J. 637 (A.C.M.R.1987), and Bum

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0423p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee, - U

571 F.3d 401 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bartholomew STEPHENS; Steven Anyanwu Stephens, Defendants-Appellants. No. 07-20899. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 10, 2009. As Corrected July 8, 2009. *403 Carmen Castillo Mitchell (argued), James Lee Turner, Asst. U.S. Att

OPINION OF THE COURT SOYBEL, Judge: Contrary to his pleas, the appellant was found guilty of one specification of attempted carnal knowledge, one specification of attempted sodomy of a child, and one specification of committing an indecent act upon a female under the age of 16 years, in violation of Articles 80 and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 934. The appellant was charged with commit

549 F.3d 459 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amon L. STEPHENS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-1907. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: October 29, 2008. Decided and Filed: November 25, 2008. *460 ARGUED: Stevens J. Jacobs, Jacobs Law Office, Bay City, Michigan, for Appella

*493 PER CURIAM: Eddie Stephens was convicted of armed bank robbery and firearm offenses in 2003. On appeal, this court found a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The court reversed Stephens’s convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether dis

KANNE, Circuit Judge. This is the second time this court has considered the case of defendant Wayne Stephens. Stephens, a Yale-educated corporate executive in New York, was convicted of three counts of wire fraud and was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment. We previously affirmed the conviction against a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. United States v. Stephens, 421

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 14, 2007 FIFTH C

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 05-4668 TERRY WAYNE STEPHENS, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior Di

*735MEMORANDUM ** Lennis Dwayne Stephens appeals the sentence imposed for his violations of conditions of his supervised release. Stephens contends that the district court failed to give reasons for the sentence and to explain why a sentence within the Guidelines range was inadequate, and that the sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.