Cases

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Herman Robinson Wingo appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. According

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Herman Robinson Wingo appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court

MEMORANDUM ** Kirk Douglas Wingo appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Wingo contends that his 22-month term of supervised release is unreasonable because the district court: (1) did not allow the parties to argue the appropriate term; (2) relied on an improper basis to support the term;

BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Appellants Karl Wingo and Brett Lang, co-conspirators convicted at trial of several drug-related crimes, are before us again, this time raising issues pertaining to their resentencings. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court’s disposition of their respective claims. I. Background Wingo and Lang were named in a forty-eight count superceding ind

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge. Defendanb-Appellant Mark Allen Wingo appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We granted a COA on two issues: (1) Whether a sentencing court can apply a multi-count sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 when the defendant has been convicted on two counts, one of which is for a pretrial escape fro

723 F.Supp. 798 (1989) UNITED STATES of America v. Wesley Joseph (Joe) WINGO. Crim. A. No. 1:89-CV-0078-JOF. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. October 5, 1989. *799 Gerrilyn G. Brill, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff. Alan J. Baverman, Gary G. Grindler, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.<

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: Sometimes running a district court can be like a high-wire balancing act. But when it comes to ensuring the competence of defendants when they go to trial or plead guilty, the court takes on the role of a safety net. Our criminal-justice system depends on the exercise of, or knowing and intelligent ■waivers of, constitutional

573 F.2d 1303 U. S.v.Wingo No. 77-1305 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit 3/31/78 1 D.N.J. AFFIRMED

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

544 U.S. 1057 WINGOv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-9015. Supreme Court of United States. May 23, 2005. 1 Petition for rehearing denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Judgment PER CURIAM. This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is *662ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

541 U.S. 954 WINGOv.UNITED STATES. No. 03-8931. Supreme Court of United States. March 22, 2004. 1 C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 76 Fed. Appx. 30.

544 U.S. 968 WINGOv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-9015. Supreme Court of United States. April 4, 2005. 1 C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 76 Fed. Appx. 30.

Judgment PER CURIAM. This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is *662ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137 (1995).

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted; judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Rutledge v. United States, ante, p. 292; and Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137 (1995).