Cases

Case: 20-20116 Document: 00516065980 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 22, 2021

Appellate Case: 25-7031 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 3, 2026

WOOD, Chief Judge. Marlon Beard appeals from an order denying his motion to reconsider the rejection of his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Beard was seeking that reduction based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and its implementing amendments to the sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Commission has made those amendments retroactive. His appeal, however, founders on a fundamental problem: th

ORDER Police officers approached Cartez Beard on the street, and when asked if he was carrying anything illegal, Beard admitted having a gun. That gun was seized, and Beard was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was released on bond but arrested seven weeks later for shooting a woman who was nine months pregnant. Beard pleaded guilty to the § 922(g)(1) charge, but at sentencing, throu

MEMORANDUM * The government appeals, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (2006), the district court’s order suppressing evidence found in defendant Curtis Lee Beard’s car. Beard claims that the evidence should have been suppressed because it was discovered only as a result of an improperly prolonged traffic stop. At 2:45 A.M., the police saw Beard fail to stop for a stop sign. This is a high crime area, and before

PER CURIAM: Mark J. O’Brien, appointed counsel for David Lee Beard in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent exa

458 F.Supp.2d 1183 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Curtis Lee BEARD, Defendant. No. 05-CR-499-BR. United States District Court, D. Oregon. October 16, 2006. *1184 Karin J. Immergut, United States Attorney, Ryan M. Archer, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff. Steven T. Wax, Federal P

PER CURIAM: Mark J. O’Brien, appointed counsel for David Lee Beard in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent exami

*609ORDER Marlon Beard was charged with possessing at least 50 grams of crack with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and with possessing a gun in furtherance of that offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He pleaded guilty to the drug offense but elected to take the gun charge to a jury, which found him guilty. The district court sentenced Beard to the mandatory minim

58 F.Supp.2d 747 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Odell BEARD, Defendant. No. CRIM. 99-50005. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. June 28, 1999. *748 Kenneth S. Karasick, Flint, MI, for Odell Beard, defendant. Mark C. Jones, U.S. Attys. Office, Flint, MI, for U.S. <

170 F.3d 187 U.S.v.Beard* NO. 97-9082 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. January 25, 1999 1 Appeal From: N.D.Ga. ,No.88-00488-1-CR-5-RLV 2

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 03-2509 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN BEARD, Defendant-Appellant. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central Distric

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: James Bowden Beard appeals from his conviction for money laundering and various related offenses. Beard contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on violations of Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(b) and 24(c). Although the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding just cause to remove two jurors, the court erred in substituting two alternate jurors in violation of Rule 24(c

132 F.3d 46 U.S.v.Beard* NO. 96-9022 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Dec 05, 1997 Appeal From: N.D.Ga. ,No.95004631CRCC 1 Affirmed in part, Reversed in part.

102 F.3d 555 U.S.v.Beard* NO. 96-2082 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Nov 14, 1996 1 Appeal From: M.D.Fla., No. 94-00175-S1-CR-J-10 2

92 F.3d 1199 U.S.v.Beard* NO. 95-3032 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. July 11, 1996 1 Appeal From: M.D.Fla., No. 94-00175-CR-J-10 2

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: Whether the time calculated under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-74, is tolled during the pendency of a pretrial motion, is the main issue presented. Because we hold that the time during which Appellants’ pretrial James motions were pending is excludable under the Act, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Appellants’

105 F.3d 654 U.S.v.Beard*d NO. 96-10712 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Dec 17, 1996 1 Appeal From: N.D.Tex., No. 6:95-CR-037-C-01 2 AFFIRMED.

962 F.2d 4 U.S.v.Beard NO. 91-1616 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Mar 20, 1992 1 Appeal From: W.D.N.Y. 2 AFFIRMED.

940 F.2d 673 U.S.v.Beard** NO. 90-8461 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. JUL 09, 1991 1 Appeal From: N.D.Ga. 2