Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) TIMOTHY JENNINGS, ) Case No. 18-cr-17 (TSC) )

United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Christopher E. JENNINGS Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant _________________________ No. 201700241

CCA 38230. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to February 6, 2014.

CCA 38230. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.* [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.] It is noted that the military judge neglected to seal

CCA 38230. [See also APPEALS— SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Nikita Jennings appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the d

BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the majority’s decision to enforce Jennings’s conviction appeal waiver. With respect to Jennings’s sentencing appeal waiver, however, I believe the government unequivocally exercised its right to appeal, thereby permitting Jennings to cross-appeal his sentence. I therefore respectfully dissent.

652 F.3d 290 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Russell JENNINGS, Defendant-Appellant. Docket Nos. 10-1642-cr (Lead), 10-1704-cr (Con). United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: April 12, 2011. Decided: July 22, 2011. *292 James P. Egan, Syracuse, N.Y. (Alexander Bunin and Lisa A. Peebles

OPINION PER CURIAM. Appellant Gabriel Jennings, proceeding pro se, sought a reduction in his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which the District Court denied. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. In 1991, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jennings was convicted of conspiracy to

ORDER On November 15, 2005, Lonnie Jennings sold crack cocaine to a government informant, Justin Stokes. Jennings was subsequently convicted, after a two-day jury trial, of knowingly and intentionally distributing in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, and conspiring to do the same. The district court sentenced Jennings to 240 months of imprisonment, the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii

ORDER On November 15, 2005, Lonnie Jennings sold crack cocaine to a government informant, Justin Stokes. Jennings was subsequently convicted, after a two-day jury trial, of knowingly and intentionally distributing in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, and conspiring to do the same. The district court sentenced Jennings to 240 months of imprisonment, the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Keith Jennings appeals from a decision and order by the district court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal. “A district court may not generally modify

OPINION PER CURIAM. Appellant Gabriel Jennings, proceeding pro se, sought a reduction in his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which the District Court denied. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. In 1991, following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jennings was convicted of conspiracy to

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Keith Jennings appeals from a decision and order by the district court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal. “A district court may not generally modify

SUMMARY ORDER Jermaine Jennings appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The district court entered the judgment pursuant to a jury verdict finding Jennings guilty of possession of “crack” with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a weapon. The court sentenced Jennings principally to a 300 month term of incarceration on the crack-pos

544 F.3d 815 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Abdul JENNINGS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-1818. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued November 13, 2007. Decided September 15, 2008. *816 John M. Maciejczyk (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, South Bend, IN

SUMMARY ORDER Following a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.), Defendant-Appellant Douglas Jennings was convicted of production, receipt and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), respectively. The district court (McAvoy, J.), sentenced Jennings principally to a term o

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 06-30190 Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  D.C. No. CR 04-0243 JLR DEVIN JENNINGS, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District C

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINSON and Judge GREGORY joined. OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Ryan Jennings, age 24, was convicted for repeatedly touching a 13-year-old girl’s buttocks, inner thighs, and genitalia during a “red-eye” transcontinental flight from San Diego, Cal

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The court’s opinion is premised on the mistaken assumption that United States v. Kelly, 422 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.2005), remains good law after the Supreme Court effectively overruled it in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007), and James v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007).