Cases

EBEL, Circuit Judge. Defendant Jemel Knox was indicted in 2014 on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). He moved to suppress the firearm that formed the basis for this charge as the product of an unconstitutio

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 27, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker

HAVRANEK, Judge: Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of attempting to violate a lawful general regulation and one specification of attempting to wrongfully manufacture 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), both in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Militar

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Johnson C. KNOX Ensign (O-1), U.S. Coast Guard CGCMG 0328 Docket No. 1424 30 November 2016 General Court-Martial convened by Comman

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Waltrell R. Knox 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). Knox has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record refle

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JULIE A. ROBINSON, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jemel Knox’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 23). Defendant contends the firearm seized during an apartment search should be suppressed because the warrant authorizing the search was not supported by a showing of probable cause. The Government has responded (Doc. 26), and an evidentiary

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Earl Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

ORDER Reginald Davis and Anthony Knox appeal their sentences for a second time. They pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a). Knox also pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The defendants were subject to a possible life sentence for the drug conspiracy because the amount of crack was at least 50 grams, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Earl Knox appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his sentence and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Knox

*915 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA M. KENDALL, District Judge. Robert Lee Knox (“Knox”) pled guilty-under a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and mixtures containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Knox moves for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C § 358

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Don Eddlon Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing in part his “Motion for Relief Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582[,] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2202 and Appendix,” as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable u

ORDER This matter is before the court for the second time. In the original appeal, we held that Armean Knox (who we continue to refer to as Armean for clarity; Anthony Knox is a codefendant) was “entitled to a limited remand, allowing the district court to indicate whether it would have selected a different sentence had it known of its discretion under Kimbrough [v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (

624 F.3d 865 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary L. KNOX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-1571. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued October 9, 2009. Decided November 10, 2010. *867 Joseph H. Hartzler, Attorney (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Springfield, IL

573 F.3d 441 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armean KNOX, Anthony Knox, and Reginald Davis, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 06-4101, 06-4376, 07-1813. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued September 18, 2008. Decided July 20, 2009. *443 Stuart D. Fullerton (argued), Office of

PER CURIAM: Don Eddlon Knox appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 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 district court. See United States v. Knox, No. 3:97-cr-00262-RLW-l 1 (E.D.Va. May 19, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

540 F.3d 708 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Prince S. KNOX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-2552. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued May 9, 2008. Decided September 2, 2008. *710 Michelle N. Weiss (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-A

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* WADE BRORBY, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Ray Charle

363 F.Supp.2d 845 (2005) UNITED STATES of America v. Cecil Byron KNOX, III, et al., Defendants. No. 7:02CR00009. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division. April 1, 2005. *846 Thomas J. Bondurant, Jr., Chief, Criminal Division, United States Attorney's Office, and C. Patrick Hogeboom, III, Assistant United Sta

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 07-2552 U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. P RINCE S. K NOX, Defendant-Appellant. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the N

SILER, Circuit Judge. The United States of America appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant Starry Knox’s motion for a new trial. The United States argues that the district *355court abused its discretion because the factors it relied on to find cumulative error are not errors. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we AFFIRM the district cour