Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23 - 1555 (LLA) JAMES T. ABBOTT, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff United States of America seeks a civil penalty of $40,000 from Defendant James T. Abbott for his failure

Case: 22-50212 Document: 00516947006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED October 27, 2023

Case: 23-50632 Document: 00516986695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED December 1, 202

U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _________________________ No. 201600375 _________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. JUSTIN M. ABBOTT Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps A

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrian Jarrell Abbott appeals from his 180-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of possession of ammunition by a felon. He was sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012), based in part on a North Carol

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Russell Abbott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. *244The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifica

574 F.3d 203 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, v. Kevin ABBOTT, Appellant. No. 08-1623. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued March 3, 2009. Filed: July 28, 2009. *204 Mark S. Miller [Argued], Elizabeth F. Abrams, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for Appellee. Je

ORDER Frank Abbott appeals from an order modifying the conditions of his supervised release, but his appointed counsel has asked to withdraw because he cannot discern any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 *302S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, and Abbott has responded to our invi

ORDER Frank Abbott appeals from an order modifying the conditions of his supervised release, but his appointed counsel has asked to withdraw because he cannot discern any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 *302S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, and Abbott has responded to our invi

451 F.Supp.2d 657 (2006) UNITED STATES of America v. Kevin ABBOTT. Criminal No. 05-333. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. September 11, 2006. *658 Stuart Patchen, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Kai N. Scott, Federal Division *659 Defender's Assoc. of Philadelphia, Philade

PER CURIAM. Defendant Ty Elmer Abbott appeals the district court’s imposition of a five-year sentence for receiving through the United States mail a visual depiction of a child engaging in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The federal sentence was imposed consecutively to an eight-year state sentence. We affirm. *313I. BACKGROU

PER CURIAM. James D. Abbott appeals the district court’s April 12, 2000, denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from a rental car in which he was a passenger. We hold the district court did not err in concluding the evidence was admissible, and we affirm on the reasoning the court articulated at the hearing on motion to suppress the evidence. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 81

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Ronald Abbott (“Abbott”) appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He also appeals from the denial of his motions (1) to change venue and (2) for discovery of grand jury minutes pursuant to Rule 12 and Rule 6(e)(3)(c)(ii), and to dismiss the indictment for insufficiency of the evidence. Because w

975 F.Supp. 703 (1997) UNITED STATES of America v. Sherwood ABBOTT, a/k/a "Jusef Abbott" Criminal Action No. 94-00010. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 4, 1997. *704 Sherwood Abbott, Butner, NC, pro se. Christopher Hall, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, PA, for U.S. MEMORANDUM

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ___________________________________ ) DANNY L. ABBOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. 15-211 L ) v. ) Filed: September 28, 2022 ) THE UNITED STATES, ) )

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0184p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ PAUL W. ABBOTT, et al. (22-5492); MICHAEL B. REED, │ individu

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 2023 MSPB 14 Docket Nos. DC-0752-12-0366-X-1 DC-0752-12-0366-X-2 Mary A. Abbott, Appellant, v. United States Postal Service,

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William R. Abbott, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we affirm for the reaso