Cases

Case: 24-10515 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10515 FILED _________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal No. 11-253-04 (CKK) KIMBERLY YVETTE HALL, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 18, 2020) Pending before this Court is pro se Defendant Kimberly Yvette Hall’s [260] Motion for Expungement (Def.’s Mot.”) r

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal Action No. 04-543 (BAH) CHARLES E. HALL, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is the defendant’s pro se Motion for an Indicative Ruling on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal Action No. 04-543 (BAH) CHARLES E. HALL, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Upon consideration of the defendant’s pro se Motion for

PER CURIAM: William Hughes, appointed counsel for Yvonne Hall in this 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

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Haywood Renard Hall has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hall has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant port

PER CURIAM: W. Scott Brower, appointed counsel for Patrick Hall 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 examinat

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent James Bryan Hall has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hall has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT I OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT OR FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS DAVID M. LAWSON, United States • District Judge Defendant Braint Ñ. Hall is charged in a nine-count superseding indictment with dodging his income tax obligations by not filing tax returns over multiple years and attempting to interfere with an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigatio

PER CURIAM: Robert Rivers, appointed counsel for Scott Anderson Hall, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared 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 examination of the entire record reveals no arg

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone Hall appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) *267(2012) motion for a sentence reduction. Hall sought a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which r

PER CURIAM: Robert Hall, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and currently serving a 360-month total sentence for crack cocaine offenses, appeals from the district court’s sua sponte denial of a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and its subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider that order. Hall previously moved for a sentence reduction under Amen

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Airman ANDREW D. HALL United States Air Force ACM 38553 05 November 2014 Sentence adjudged 21 January 2014 by GCM convened at McConnell Air Force Base, K

CCA 38241. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 23, 2014.

CCA 20130217. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.* It is directed that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals be corrected to reflect in the open

OPINION OF THE COURT UPON RECONSIDERATION MARKSTEINER, Senior Judge: A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted the appellant, consistent with her pleas, of violating a lawful order on divers occasions; larceny of military property of a value of over $500; aggravated assault with a loaded firearm; and obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 92, 121, 128, and 134, UC

CCA 20130178. Appellant’s motion to file additional matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.1982), is hereby granted.

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before M.D. MODZELEWSKI, R.Q. WARD, J. MCFARLANE Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JULIUS B. HALL LANCE CORPORAL (E-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201300435 SPECIAL COU

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman BRITTNEY L. HALL United States Air Force ACM 38241 ____ M.J. ____

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marc Pierre Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion to vacate his judgment as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion and denying relief. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate