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 “Brannon v. United States”
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
43 A.3d 936 (2012) Terry BRANNON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 10-CM-1109. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted May 26, 2011. Decided May 17, 2012. *937 George E. Rickman, Washington, appointed by the court, was on the brief, for appellant. Ronald C. Machen, Jr., United States Att
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Brannonpublic domain
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael C. Brannon appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court reduced Brannon’s sentence to the mini
United States v. Brannonpublic domain
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael C. Brannon appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court reduced Brannon’s sentence to the mini
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Dorcelus v. Brannonpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Pettie v. Brannon (In re Brannon)public domain
III. APPLICABLE LAW a. Count II: Avoidance of Transfer Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) Plaintiff alleges the Transfer is avoidable pursuant to section 544(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.1 Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code a
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Hamilton v. Brannonpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Brannon v. Winnpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
United States v. Brannonpublic domain
377 F.Supp.2d 667 (2005) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Sean BRANNON, Defendant. No. 04-CR-220. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. July 7, 2005. *668 James E. Toran, Law Offices of James Toran, Peter J. Kovac, Kovac Law Office, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant. Gregory J. Haanstad, United States Department
Thompson v. Brannonpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
United States v. Brannonpublic domain
PER CURIAM. Michael C. Brannon, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court abs
Brannon v. Stevensonpublic domain
Petition for rehearing denied.
Brannon v. Stevensonpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Brannon v. United Statespublic domain
ORDER DENYING REHEARING CARSWELL, Chief Judge. This case comes before the Court upon motion ore tenus of the plaintiffs for rehearing of this Court's previous dismissal. Briefs have been submitted on behalf of the parties and reviewed by this Court. The Court now adheres to the ruling of dismissal made at the close of plaintiffs’ case as more fully appears in the trial transcript and f