Cases

CCA 201400022. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to May 21, 2015.

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before F.D. MITCHELL, J.A. FISCHER, K.M. MCDONALD Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JERAMIE M. HUTCHINSON INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. N

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before J.A. FISCHER, D.C. KING, T.H. CAMPBELL Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSEPH M. HUTCHINSON SERGEANT (E-5), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 20150

PER CURIAM: Dennard Hutchinson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relief Hutchinson sought. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010) (stat

573 F.3d 1011 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin HUTCHINSON, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Arthur Thompson, a/k/a "LT", Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Junior Ray Montoya, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William L. Gladney, a/k/a "L", Defendant-Appellan

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Ranier Hutchinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A c

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. No. 24-cr-00314 (DLF) LARNELL HUTCHINSON, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is Larnell Hutchinson’s “Motion of Appeal,” Dkt. 35, which the Court has construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons that fo

PER CURIAM: Neville A. Hutchinson seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of several incomprehensible pleadings construed by the court as post-judgment motions in Hutchinson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. By failing to challenge the district court’s characterization of his pleadings or the grounds for denying relief, Hutchinson has waived appellate review of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(

471 F.Supp.2d 497 (2007) UNITED STATES of America v. Rodney HUTCHINSON, Defendant. No. 1:CR-06-173-1. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. January 18, 2007. William A. Behe, U.S. Attorney's Office, Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiff. *498 MEMORANDUM KANE, Chief Judge. Pending before

MEMORANDUM ** Denise Hutchinson appeals from the district court’s determination that she is ineligible for the sentencing safety valve in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We affirm. The defendant must fulfill five criteria in order to qualify for the safety valve: (1) the defendant does not have more than one criminal history point; (2) the defenda

PER CURIAM: Dennard Hutchinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A priso

PER CURIAM.* Counsel appointed to represent Bobby Hutchinson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In response, Hutchinson has requested that alternate counsel be appointed. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this dir

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Chaka T. Hutchinson, who was walking to a friend’s house after work, was stopped and questioned by two police officers and a detective who were investigating an assault that had occurred earlier in the evening. According to the police, Hutchinson very closely fit a lookout description for the assailant. As part of the investigative stop, the police asked f

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Chaka T. Hutchinson appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon on the ground that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He contends that the retention of his identification during a Terry stop extended his nonconsensual detention longer t

SULLIVAN, Judge (concurring with reservation): I agree with my Brother completely on the state-court issue. On the Gorski issue, I would set side the decision below and remand this case to the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to my separate opinion in United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370, 376 (1997) (concurring in part and in the result).

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 4, 2001 Decided November 6, 2001 No. 01-3036 United States of America, Appellee v. Chaka Toure Hutchinson, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the District

ORDER Upon consideration of the appellant’s petition for rehearing, it is ORDERED that the court’s opinion filed on November 6, 2001 be amended as follows: Page 10: In the last paragraph, strike the phrase “further factual development about the ‘WALES’ check, and.” Thus, the last paragraph is to read:

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 4, 2001 Decided November 6, 2001 No. 01-3036 United States of America, Appellee v. Chaka Toure Hutchinson, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the District

PER CURIAM: Michael Hutchinson pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with one count of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and one count of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. His conditional guilty plea preserved the issue of the constitutionality of the carjacking s

54 F.3d 765 U.S.v.Hutchinson NO. 94-1616 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Apr 12, 1995 Appeal From: S.D.N.Y. 94-cr-545 1 AFFIRMED.