Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 22-1276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. AMANDA FORD, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Timothy S. Hillman, U.S. District Judge]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 05-0100-9 (PLF) ) NEWETT VINCENT FORD, ) ) Defendant.

Dale A. Drozd, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On February 20, 2018, defendant filed a motion to recuse the undersigned from presiding over this action, as well as a motion to stay the briefing on the government's pending motion for summary judgment until the recusal motion is ruled upon. (Doc. No. 36.) Defendant's motion to recuse is brought pursuant to

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Michael Ford entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), preserving for this direct appeal his challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. We uphold the district court’s ruling. Ford and Cameron Hoefle were passengers in a car driven by Tyler Mincks around 2:00 a.m. on December 4, 2015. Mincks was stopped in Moline, Illi

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: *1253The parties have raised an issue of first impression before the Court regarding forfeiture. Specifically, the parties dispute whether an in personam money judgment is available to the Government in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Honeycutt v. United States , 581 U.S. ----,

TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge. *1282 The district court sentenced Steven Ford to twenty years' imprisonment for various firearms-possession charges, followed by three years of supervised release. Because of a sex-offense conviction nineteen years earlier, the district court placed sex-offense-sp

Appellate Case: 23-1400 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 28, 2025

*98 MASTROIANNI, District Judge. James F. Ford, with assistance from his wife Darlene and his sons Paul and Jim, 1 directed a marijuana-growing operation out of a home in Monroe, Maine. Acting on a tip from Jim’s girlfriend, police executed a sear

OPINION PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the motions of defendants Rashard Grant, Christopher Ford, and Theodore Sanders to sever their trials from the trials of their co-defendants. Defendants Anthony Hag-er, Andre Leach, and Rashard Grant adopt one or more of the motions. The government opposes the motions. Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissi

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. The four members of the Ford family ran an illicit, indoor marijuana farm, for which they have all been sentenced to prison. This appeal by Darlene Ford primarily concerns not the marijuana, but rather Darlene’s semi-automatic rifle, which she allowed her husband, James F. Ford, to use for target practice. James’.s possession of a firearm was a crime because

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States Distinct Judge This matter is before the Court on the motions of defendants Marcus Fenwick and Levon Simmons to suppress physical evidence and statements. Defendants Rashard Grant, Andre Leach, and Anthony Hager have adopted these motions in whole or in part. The government opposes the motions. Since the filing of these motions, defendant Fenwick has

CCA 20110417. Appellant’s second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including February 4, 2014, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

CCA 20110417. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 21, 2014.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on DefendanVCounterplaintiff Angela Ford and BAC Home Loans Servicing LP’s (Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 59), and Plaintiff/Counterdefendant United States of America’s (Plaintiff or “Gover

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN T. COPENHAVER, JR., District Judge. Pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss for selective prosecution, filed November 28, 2011. *138On July 19, 2011, the United States filed a single count indictment charging defendant with the knowing possession of a firearm after having been convict

639 F.3d 718 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John FORD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-6169. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: March 9, 2011. Decided and Filed: April 14, 2011. ARGUED: Paul Mogin, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Matthew J. Everitt, Assistant United States Attorn

613 F.3d 1263 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Anthony FORD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-2244. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. July 27, 2010. *1265 Gregory J. Fouratt, United States Attorney, (Terri J. Abernathy, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Las Cruces, NM, for Plai

OPINION BARRY, Circuit Judge. Demetrius Ford appeals his designation as an armed career criminal, arguing that his conviction for the Pennsylvania crime of escape from official detention does not constitute a violent felony. We will vacate Ford’s sentence and remand to the District Court for re-sentencing. *904I.

OPINION BARRY, Circuit Judge. Demetrius Ford appeals his designation as an armed career criminal, arguing that his conviction for the Pennsylvania crime of escape from official detention does not constitute a violent felony. We will vacate Ford’s sentence and remand to the District Court for re-sentencing. *904I.

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was presented to the court, and briefed and argued by counsel. The court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the