Cases

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-CF-0349 GARY N. PROCTOR, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES,

2023 UT App 59 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS DUKE CAPITAL LLC, Appellant, v. JON PROCTOR, Appellee. Opinion No. 20210581-CA Filed May 25, 2023 Third District Court, Tooele Department The Honorable Dianna Gibson

This opinion is subject to revision before publication UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Eric R. PROCTOR, Technical Sergeant United States Air Force, Appellant No. 20-0340 Crim. App. No. S32554 Argued February 10, 202

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: Jonathan Michael Proctor (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for drug delivery resulting in death; flight to avoid apprehension, trial, or punishment; manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver; possession of a controlled su

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick Proctor is an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), serving a sentence of thirty-two-and-one-half years to life for second-degree murder, robbery, and attempted escape. He is confined in the Special Housing Unit (

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN RICHARD PROCTOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:04−cr−00160−DKC−1) Argued: Januar

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-CF-309 JEROME PROCTOR, JR., APPELLANT, v. UNITED STAT

District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. 15-CF-309 JEROME PROCTOR, JR., Appellant, v. CF2-10780-14 UNITED STATES, Appellee. Before: Blackburne-Rigsby *, Chief Judge; Glickman, Fisher, Thompson, Beckwith, Easterly, and McLeese *, Associate Judge; and Reid *, Senior Judge. ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHANEL PROCTOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:18-cv-701 (TNM) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Three current and former homeless individuals challenge the District of Columbia’s protocol for clearing enc

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending is Claimant Jason Douglas Proctor’s Complaint seeking review of the *496final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”). (ECF No. 2.) By standing order filed in this case on January 5, 2016, this action was referred to

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20‐3425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. THOMAS PROCTOR, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. SAFEWAY, INC., Defendant‐Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States Distric

ORDER PER CURIAM On consideration of the appellee’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and appellant’s opposition thereto, it is ORDERED .by the merits division*, that the appellee’s petition for rehearing is granted in part, and this court’s March 16, 2017,***opinion is amended by revising the last sentence on pages 403-04, with accompan

ORDER PER CURIAM On consideration of the appellee’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and appellant’s opposition thereto, it is ORDERED .by the merits division*, that the appellee’s petition for rehearing is granted in part, and this court’s March 16, 2017,***opinion is amended by revising the last sentence on pages 403-04, with accompan

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT ■ AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. I. SUMMARY Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 116) (“R & R”) relating to plaintiffs' Dispositive Motion (dkt. no. 75) and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (dkt. no

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-CF-304 and No. 19-CF-369 CALVIN ABNEY and SHAWNE I. PROCTOR, APPELLANTS, v. UNI

ORDER PER CURIAM On consideration of the appellee’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and appellant’s opposition thereto, it is ORDERED .by the merits division*, that the appellee’s petition for rehearing is granted in part, and this court’s March 16, 2017,***opinion is amended by revising the last sentence on pages 403-04, with accompan

ORDER PER CURIAM On consideration of the appellee’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and appellant’s opposition thereto, it is ORDERED .by the merits division*, that the appellee’s petition for rehearing is granted in part, and this court’s March 16, 2017,***opinion is amended by revising the last sentence on pages 403-04, with accompan

HICKS, J. **800 The defendant, Edward G. Proctor, appeals his conviction, following a jury trial in Superior Court ( Delker , J.), on one count of **801 violating RSA 632-

07/14/2026 DA 23-0409 Case Number: DA 23-0409 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2026 MT 150 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KATHERINE ANNE PROCTOR, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Co

TREVOR N. MCFADDEN, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Shanel Proctor and Charlaine Braxton, two homeless residents of the District of Columbia, are suing the District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment. They seek an injunction ordering the District not to destroy the unattended personal belonging