Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES G. MOORE; KATHLEEN F. No. 20-36122 MOORE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01539- v. JCC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OPINION Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wash

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-1320 (Filed: December 16, 2022) ) Request for appointment of counsel; CHRISTOPHER MOORE, ) request for class certification; improper ) reliance on treaties with Indian tribes as a Plaintiff,

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-1931 (Filed: January 27, 2022) ) Claims under the Equal Pay Act, 29 TIMOTHY MOORE, ) U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), and Back Pay Act, 5 ) U.S.C. § 5596; failure to state a claim, Plaintiff,

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Charles Oliver appeals his sentence of 210 months of imprisonment for distribution of child pornography. Oliver asserts that the district court erred when it applied a five-level enhancement under USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (2016) for distributing child pornography in exchange for valuable consideration. Because we articulate, for the fi

MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND ... 5 A. Factual Overview ... 5 B. Procedural History ... 10 1. Plaintiffs Initiation of Two Lawsuits ... 11 2. Key Judicial Decisions ... 12

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6814 THOMAS T. PROUSALIS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES E. MOORE, Senior U.S. Probation Officer, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-0

PER CURIAM: Charles Lewis Chappie, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). His motion was based on retroactive Guidelines Amendment 782, which lowered offense levels for a number of drug offenses by two base-offense levels. At the time of the Amendment, however, Chappie had already completed hi

OPINION SUTTON, Circuit Judge. A federal jury convicted Jafari Moore of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.. His principal claim on appeal is that the district court should have instructed the jury about his affirmative defense that he possessed the gun out of necessity. We affirm. I. Jafari Moo

651 F.3d 30 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Rodney L. MOORE, also known as Rasoo, Appellant. Nos. 05-3050, 05-3051, 05-3052, 05-3053, 05-3054, 05-3064. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued March 24, 2011. Decided July 29, 2011. *38 Stephen C. Leckar, appointed by the c

OPINION SMITH, Circuit Judge. Charles Moore pleaded guilty to a one count information that charged him with tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. The Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence that included an 18-to 24-month term of imprisonment. The District Court, however, sentenced Moore to a below-Guidelines sentence of 5 years of probation, a $25,000 fíne, and $100 special assessment. The Gov

OPINION SMITH, Circuit Judge. Charles Moore pleaded guilty to a one count information that charged him with tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. The Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence that included an 18-to 24-month term of imprisonment. The District Court, however, sentenced Moore to a below-Guidelines sentence of 5 years of probation, a $25,000 fíne, and $100 special assessment. The Gov

133 F.3d 933 98 CJ C.A.R. 191 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, o

565 F.3d 435 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Scott MOORE, Appellant. No. 08-2539. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: February 13, 2009. Filed: May 8, 2009. *436 John Michael Lynch, St. Charles, MO, for appellant. Sirena Miller Wissler, AUSA, for appellant. Befor

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

*477 OPINION HAMILTON, Circuit Judge: DefendanVappellant Charles Moore (Moore) appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur for the most part in the majority’s opinion. However, I disagree with the majority’s intimations that the prosecutor’s behavior here was in any way improper. I. Lavelle Moore was indicted by a grand jury on September 5, 2001, and was arrested shortly thereafter. Prior to the indictment on September 4, 2001, Moore had

OPINION CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendants Donald Miggins, Edward McDaniels and Charles Moore, Jr. appeal from the respective criminal judgments entered against them arising from drug trafficking. Miggins challenges his sentence, while McDaniels and Moore claim that the district court erred in denying their suppression motions. For the reasons set forth below,

299 F.Supp.2d 623 (2004) UNITED STATES of America v. Sean MOORE also know as Charles Tyson Moore No. CRIM.A. 5:03-00262. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia. Beckley Division. January 6, 2004. *624 *625 Sean Moore, Beaver, WV, Pro se, David R. Bungard, Federal Public Defender, Eas

OPINION KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Charles Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals his conviction on one count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine. He argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the government violated the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment by prejudicially dela

ORDER The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule *97431(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.