Cases

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before F.D. MITCHELL, J.R. MCFARLANE, M.C. HOLIFIELD Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICHARD T. PEARCE CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER 3 (W-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS NMCCA 201100

CCA 201100110. On further consideration of the granted issues, 72 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and 72 M.J. 159 (C.A.A.F. 2013), in light of United States v. Castellano, 72 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Kish, 72 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to t

CCA 201100110. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.

CCA 201100110. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition and Appellant’s motion to stay the proceedings, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied, and that said writ-appeal is hereby denied.

Counsel for the appellant in this case concedes that, unless the Supreme Court should overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), there is no basis for disturbing the judgment. Only the Supreme Court is entitled to overrule one of its own decisions, so the appeal cannot succeed in this court. The issue has been preserved for presentation to a higher tribunal. AFFIRMED.

531 F.3d 374 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl PEARCE (07-3146), and Curtis Johnson (07-3193), Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 07-3146, 07-3193. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Submitted: June 5, 2008. Decided and Filed: July 3, 2008. *377 ON BRIEF: John B. Gibbons, Law Offic

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0240p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee, - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

OPINION WEIS, Circuit Judge. Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of an indictment arising from two instances of armed robbery of a jewelry store. The prosecution and the defendant entered into a written plea agreement that called for a specific sentence of 30 years incarceration and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, defendant contends that the delay between his indictment a

ORDER Kenneth Russell Pearce appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for possessing an unregistered destructive device. The parties have waived oral argument. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Pearce was tried to a jury on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possessing an

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 98-4416 KENNETH ROBERT PEARCE, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 98-4563 HOMER GRADY CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columb

162 F.3d 1178 U.S.v.Pearce* NO. 98-8360 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. November 02, 1998 Appeal From: S.D.Ga. , No.97005961CVTWT 1 Affirmed.

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH MAY 18 1998 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

EVERETT, Chief Judge (concurring in the result): The basis for the military judge’s permitting the challenged questions of Sergeant Hamilton was Mil.R.Evid. 405(a), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition). In addition, he performed the balancing exercise required under Mil. R.Evid. 403 and concluded that the questions’ probative value outweighed their risk of unfair prejudice. In bo

OPINION OF THE COURT WOLD, Senior Judge: In a contested trial before members, appellant was convicted of a larceny and a housebreaking1 committed at Spangdahlem Air Force Base, Federal Republic of Germany. During the trial on the merits, the trial defense counsel elicited the following testimony regarding appellant’s character for honesty: Q: How l

829 F.2d 33 U.S.v.Pearce (Ronald) NO. 86-1683 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. AUG 25, 1987 1 Appeal From: E.D.Pa.; Appeal after remand 792 F.2d 397 2

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RAYMOND J. BRODERICK, District Judge. Presently before the Court are the post-trial motions of the defendant, Edward Pearce, for a judgment of acquittal and/or for a new trial. On February 24, 1977, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the one count indictment which charged the defendant with making a false declaration before a federal grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

566 F.2d 1170 U. S.v.Pearce No. 77-1537 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit 12/23/77 1 E.D.Pa. VACATED AND REMANDED