Cases

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before TANG, HITESMAN, and STEPHENS, Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Jeffrey D. PITTMAN Senior Chief Petty Officer (E-8), U.S. Navy

ORDER Appellant Tony Pittman pled guilty to possessing 18.6 grams of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of 120 months in prison on each charge. On appeal Pittman argues that the district court should have applied the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111-220,124 Stat. 2372, to his crack cocaine

PER CURIAM: Laderick Devon Pittman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).* 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). 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)

642 F.3d 583 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald PITTMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-2132. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued January 11, 2011. Decided June 15, 2011. *584 Meghan C. Morrissey (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintif

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Timothy James Pittman 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). Pittman has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Pittman’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the moti

OPINION OF THE COURT SCIRICA, Chief Judge. Defendant Lester Pittman was convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence obtained when the police frisked him during a lawful traffic stop. We will affirm. I. On

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shontayne Dwayne Pittman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), in which he sought the benefit of Amendments 505 and 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and denying his motion for reconsideration. W

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shontayne Dwayne Pittman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), in which he sought the benefit of Amendments 505 and 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and denying his motion for reconsideration. W

OPINION OF THE COURT SCIRICA, Chief Judge. Defendant Lester Pittman was convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence obtained when the police frisked him during a lawful traffic stop. We will affirm. I. On

415 F.Supp.2d 951 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Korvel Dennis PITTMAN, Defendant. No. 03-40095. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division. February 21, 2006. *952 Jeffrey B. Lang, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Rock Island, IL, for Plaintiff. George F. Taseff, Office of the Federal Pu

MEMORANDUM ** Appellant Mario Dion Pittman appeals the district court’s revocation of his super*726vised release and imposition of a thirty-six month prison sentence. The district court revoked Pittman’s supervised release because of his arrest for the transportation of marijuana for sale in Arizona on January 13, 2005.1

ORDER After the limited Paladino remand, the sentencing judge has informed us that he is inclined to give the defendant a lower sentence. The case is therefore remanded for resentencing.

ORDER After the limited Paladino remand, the sentencing judge has informed us that he is inclined to give the defendant a lower sentence. The case is therefore remanded for resentencing.

ORDER Larry Blane Pittman appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. The parties have waived oral argument. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). On the day set for his trial, Pittman pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

MEMORANDUM* Mario Dion Pittman appeals the district court’s opinion and order denying his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Specifically, Pittman challenges the district court’s holding that it could not retroactively apply the new rule established in Apprendi v. New Jersey1 to cases on initial collateral review. We have jurisdiction to hear this app

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-6937 ANTHONY ALEXANDER PITTMAN, a/k/a Anthony Alexander Pittman, Sr., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-94-290-6, CA-97-524-6) Argued: January 27, 2000 Decided: March 24, 2

120 F.Supp.2d 1263 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marlo Dion PITTMAN, Defendant-Petitioner. Nos. CV 00-449-MA, CR 96-293-MA. United States District Court, D. Oregon. November 15, 2000. *1264 Marc D. Blackman, Ransom Blackman LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Petitioner. Michael Brown, Assistant U.

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Troy Pittman appeals his convictions for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm in commission of a bank robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and forcing another to accompany him during the commission of a robbery. On appeal Pittman argues (1) the district court failed to properly instruct the jury to consider the evidence related to each charge separately, (2) the evidence presented was in

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 03-1812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICE C. PITTMAN, Defendant-Appellant. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illi

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 01-3359 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THEODORE PITTMAN, III, Defendant-Appellant. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.