Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Case No. 19-cr-395 (BAH) LARRY DEAN HARMON, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Civil Action No. 19-cv-395 (BAH) LARRY DEAN HARMON, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant, Larry Dean Harmon, is charged in three counts, including violating the District of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 19-395 (BAH) LARRY DEAN HARMON, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant, Larry Dean Harmon, is charged in three counts related to his alleged operation of Helix, an un

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Devon Harmon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the reeord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Harmon, No. 1:14-cr-00017-1 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 9,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JAMIE HARMON’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Before the Court is a motion for a new trial brought by Defendant Jamie Harmon (“Harmon”). ECF No. 321. The government opposes the motion. ECF No. 325. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the evidence, and the relevant law, the Court hereby DENIES Harmon’s motion for a new trial.

JACKSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Probably most of us have, at some time in our lives, weaved within our lane while driving on the highway. Probably most of us have, at one time or another, crossed the “fog line” separating our lane from the shoulder of the road. This case asks us to decide at what point otherwise ordinary driving errors cross the

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio Merlin Harmon appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider or Rehear, filed July 15, 2011 (Doc. 72) (“Motion to Reconsider”); (ii) the Defendant’s Motion by Way of the Defendant for Withdrawal of Plea Agreement filed on May 20, 2011, filed September 21, 2011 (Doc. 87) (“Motion to Withdraw Plea”); and (iii) the

785 F.Supp.2d 1146 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Michael HARMON, Defendant. No. CR 10-1760 JB. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. May 6, 2011. *1149 Kenneth J. Gonzales, United States Attorney, James R.W. Braun, Assistant United States Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for the Plaintiff. Charles E. Knob

607 F.3d 233 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Thomas HARMON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-5006. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Submitted: April 30, 2010. Decided and Filed: June 2, 2010. *234 ON BRIEF: Paula R. Voss, Federal Defender Services of Eastern, TN., Inc., Kn

OPINION OF THE COURT RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Ronald Harmon appeals his sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), urging that his May 1987 conviction was not a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). We exercise plenary review over this determination by the District Court, and will affirm. In May 1987, Harmon pled guilty to possession with intent to

PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Harmon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion “nunc pro tunc for review of sentence.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Harmon, No. 1:00-cr-00153-CMC-1 (D.S.C. May 17, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

PER CURIAM: Michael Tracy Harmon appeals the district court’s orders denying Harmon’s motion for rehef under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), and Harmon’s motions for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and affirm the denial of the *238underlying order for the reasons stated by the district court. In addition, we find no abuse of the district cour

ERDMANN, Judge (dissenting): The majority opinion finds that Harmon’s status as an active duty member of the Marine Corps did not terminate until 2359 on May 17, 2001 and that his discharge was properly revoked before that time. Because I find that Harmon’s discharge was validly completed at 0900,1 respectfully dissent. Harmon was disch

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 05a0214p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee

MEMORANDUM * Harley Harmon appeals the district court’s judgment of conviction on thirty-four counts of mail fraud and his resulting sentence of fifty-seven months imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the conviction, but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Harmon first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction o

SUSZAN, Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of attempted kidnapping, attempted larceny, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, in violation of Articles 80 and 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880 and 881. The appellant was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 10 years, and forfeiture of

PER CURIAM. Michael Tracy Harmon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent “

21 F.Supp.2d 642 (1998) UNITED STATES of America v. D'Ron Lamar HARMON. No. 4:98-CR-169-A. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division. October 23, 1998. *643 *644 Michael P. Heiskell, Attorney at Law, Johnson Vaughn & Heiskell, Fort Worth, TX, Douglas C. Greene, Fort Wor

MEMORANDUM COLLIER, District Judge. On November 20, 1998, Aubey Brent Harmon appeared before the Court to plead guilty to a one-count bill of information which charged: The United States Attorney charges that on or about May 27, 1998, in the Northern District of Florida, the defendant AUBEY BRENT HARMON, aided and abetted by others known and unknown to the United Sta