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 “United States of America v. Bell Wilson”
United States v. Bellpublic domain
ED KINKEADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant Corey Jevon Bell's Motion to Suppress (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 135). The Court held a hearing on the Motion on April 3, 2019. As the Court noted in its minute entry for the hearing (Doc. No. 157), its order was forthcoming. After considering the Motion, the response to the Motion, the arguments and evidence presented at the suppression hearing, and the applicabl
Bell v. United States of Americapublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA YOLANDA BELL, : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 18-cv-00738 (RC) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al, :
955 F.2d 586 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Warren Earl COMEAUX, a/k/a Warren Como, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Carolyn Laverne BELL, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Larry ROBERSON, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Lillian WILSON, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Billy Ralph COOPER, Appellant. Nos. 90
United States v. Wilsonpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED August 29, 2025 No. 25-30105
United States v. Wilsonpublic domain
79 F.Supp.2d 1029 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. George Nicholas WILSON, et al., Defendants. No. LR-CR-99-61. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division. September 8, 1999. *1030 Paula Casey, United States Attorney, by Michael D. Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney, Little Rock, AR, for Un
United States v. Damone Bellpublic domain
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0137p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appel
United States v. Jahlin Wilsonpublic domain
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 20-2048, 20-2049, 20-2080, 20-2086, 20-2087, 20-2088, 20-2100, 20-2115, 20-2116, 20-2117, 20-2133, 20-2208, 20-2229 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENTREVION WATKINS, et al. Defendants-Appell
United States v. Brandon Wilsonpublic domain
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4160 Doc: 162 Filed: 08/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 54 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4123 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MONTANA BARRONETTE, Defendant – Appellant.
United States v. Wilsonpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal No. 96-319-01 (CKK) LOUIS A. WILSON, (Civil Action No. 12-852) Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (October 7, 2019) Presently before the
Gill v. United States of Americapublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEPHEN GILL, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-2380 (JEB) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION The Supreme Court has often emphasized that “[j]ust as military society has been a society apart from civilian society, so ‘military l
United States v. Wilsonpublic domain
uNITF.D st'ArEs DISTRICT Coult'l‘ ron THF. nls'rruc"r or Cot.uMBlA JAN 04 2019 Clerk. U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts j UNI'I`ED STA`I`ES OF AMERICA, § v. § Criminal No. 05-100-02 (PLF) DAVID WILSON, i Defenclant. § ) OPTNION The matter is before the Court on the w §§ motion [Dkt. No. 1593] of defendant l)avid Wilson to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amcndment ?82 to the United States Sentencing Guideiines. Upon careful consideration ot`the parties"
United States v. Wilsonpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 05-100-02 (PLF) ) Civil Action No. 17-2044 (PLF) DAVID WILSON, )
United States v. Wilsonpublic domain
Case: 24-10633 Document: 90-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10633 FILED
Lkq Corporation v. United States of Americapublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LKQ CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 18-cv-1562 (DLF) UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (collectively LKQ) bring these actions under t
Loumiet v. United States of Americapublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge Plaintiff Carlos Loumiet filed suit against the United States Government for *81 the actions of its agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”
Boyd v. United States of Americapublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint [ECF No. 11] and the Plaintiffs *162 Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, with Request for Summary Judgme
Barnett v. United States of Americapublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief Judge This matter is before the Court on the federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint [ECF No. 16] and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17]. For the reasons discussed below,
United States v. Gregory Bellpublic domain
*927 ORDER PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of the petitions of appellant Bell in No. 08-3037 and appellant Wilson in No.. 11-3032 for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petitions be denied. KAVANAUGH, Circui
CSX Corporation v. United Statespublic domain
PER CURIAM: This case concerns whether the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) imposes a tax on (1) a railroad's stock transfers to its employees and (2) a railroad's provision of relocation benefits to its employees. CSX Corporation (CSX) maintains that neither is taxable and, accordingly, seeks a refund of federal employment taxes paid in 2009
United States v. Gregory Bellpublic domain
WILKINS, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in part: I join the Court’s opinion upholding Bell’s sentence. I part ways with the majority, however, on Wilson’s conviction. In my view, the District Court violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by forcing Wilson to continue his defense with replacement counsel who had been absent from court during the earlier testimony