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 “Nix v. United States”
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On April 12, 2018, this Court issued a summary order that GRANTED Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 6751 Claims. (Dkt. No. 115.) In that order, the Court announced its intention to issue a written opinion providing "a full explanation and analysis of the Court's ruling announced into the record." (Id. at 2.) Such explanation and analysis is provi
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied. Same case below, 628 F.3d 1341.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
542 U.S. 913 NIXv.UNITED STATES. No. 03-10312. Supreme Court of United States. June 14, 2004. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 84 Fed. Appx. 415.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
111 F.Supp.2d 186 (2000) Kevin NIX, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. No. 00-CV-2829 (ILG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 21, 2000. Kevin Nix, Minnersville, PA, pro se. Kelly Moore, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for U.S. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GLASSER, D
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
510 U.S. 957 Nixv.United States. No. 93-6161. Supreme Court of United States. November 1, 1993. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 5th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 996 F. 2d 308.
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
510 U.S. 1002 Nixv.United States. No. 93-6530. Supreme Court of United States. November 29, 1993. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 5th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 995 F. 2d 49
Nix v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Nixpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is a motion, filed by Defendant Matthew Nix (“Nix”) on June 5, 2017, seeking the following relief: (1) that one of the jurors who served during the trial — identified as “J.B,” or “Juror No. 3”1 — not receive immunity and be charged criminally; (2) appointment of a special prosecut
United States v. Nixpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States. District Judge I. Introduction Presently before the Court is a motion filed by defendants Earl McCoy (“McCoy”) and Matthew Nix (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking reconsideration- of the Court’s Decision and Order, dated August 24, 2017, in which the Court'denied Defendants’ motions
United States v. Nixpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge L INTRODUCTION Defendants. Matthew Nix (“Nix”) and Earl McCoy (“McCoy”) (collectively, “Defendants”) were charged in a Third Superseding Indictment returned on January 5, 2017, with 12 counts alleging violations of the Hobbs Act,. 18 U.S.C.,§ 1951(a), and related firearms and narcotics charges, all in connection with
United States v. Nixpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge Defendants Matthew Nix and Earl McCoy (“Defendants”) were charged in a Third Superseding Indictment returned on January 5, 2017, with 12 counts alleging violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and related firearms and narcotics charges, all in connection with a spree of home invasions during 2014. (Dkt. 165). Trial commenced on
United States v. Nixpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge Over four months after a jury was selected and three months after that jury *431convicted defendants Matthew Nix and Earl McCoy (collectively, “Defendants”) of all counts in the Third Superseding Indictment, they have filed a motion challenging the jury selection process. Defenda
United States v. Nixpublic domain
CCA 20120347. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to June 10, 2014.
United States v. Nixpublic domain
628 F.3d 1341 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony NIX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-15335 Non-Argument Calendar. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. December 30, 2010. Robert E. Adler, Kathleen M. Williams, Fed. Pub. Defenders, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellant. Laura Thomas Rivero, Anne R. Schultz, Kathleen