Cases

ELI RICHARDSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *918Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 47). The Government filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. 53). On December 10, 2018, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Thereafter, the parties filed post-hearing briefs (Doc. Nos. 87, 92). For the reasons discussed

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Currently before the Court are Defendant Randell G. Shelton, Jr.'s Motion to Set Aside the Forfeiture Order and Enter an Amended Forfeiture Order (Doc. 487) and Brief in Support (Doc. 492), as well as the Government's Response (Doc. 491). For the reasons given below, Mr. Shelton's Motion is DENIED . I. BACKGROUND Mr. S

*827On January 23, 2016, DH took medications, fell asleep on the couch, was heard snoring about 3:00 a.m. on January 24, 2016, and was found unresponsive by his fiancée/girlfriend later that day, when he was pronounced dead. At the time of DH's death, there were 49 less oxycodone pills and six less Xanax pills than should have been left from the medications filled on J

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2209 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Shelton Oliver

Case: 18-31074 Document: 00515618613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-31074 Octob

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: After a jury in 2010 found Shelton Demond Ketter guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court applied the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(B), to sen

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terah Javan Shelton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (20

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

ORDER Danny Shelton challenges the denial of his motion to suppress child pornography found on his computer. Police obtained a warrant to seize and search his computer, but the affidavit supporting the warrant omits significant details about the police investigation. Because we conclude that the affidavit still provided the issuing judge with enough detail to establish probable cause and that the good-faith excep

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Joe Shelton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of

OPINION AMBRO, Circuit Judge. The sentencing of Raymond Shelton is before us on appeal for a third time. We have twice vacated and remanded for re-sentencing after the Government twice breached the plea agreement. Shelton now appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court on the second remand. We affirm.1 *735<

OPINION AMBRO, Circuit Judge. The sentencing of Raymond Shelton is before us on appeal for a third time. We have twice vacated and remanded for re-sentencing after the Government twice breached the plea agreement. Shelton now appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court on the second remand. We affirm.1 *735<

PER CURIAM: * *362The attorney appointed to represent Leroy Lashan Shelton 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). Shelton has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfriv

539 F.Supp.2d 259 (2008) UNITED STATES of America v. Darrell SHELTON, Defendant. Criminal Action No. 03-432 (RMU). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 25, 2008. *260 Charles Joseph Harkins, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C., for United States of America. Tony W. Miles, Federal Public Defen

MEMORANDUM** Austin J. Shelton appeals from the 100-month sentence imposed upon remand from this court. He was convicted by a *712jury of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), conspiracy to restrain trade, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 3 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and conspiracy to launder money, in v

Chief Judge GIERKE delivered the opinion of the Court. In the military justice system, the clergy privilege is “[o]ne of the most sacred privileges.”1 This privilege “ ‘recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counsel- or, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly

SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION After a bench trial, defendant-appellant Wayne Shelton was convicted of aggravated bank robbery. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s rejection of his insanity defense and the reasonableness of a bottom-of-the-range sentence of 262 months. After a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM.

PER CURIAM: After a full and superb oral argument, and careful consideration, and in light of the very similar precedent of United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir.2006), we readily conclude that the conviction and sentence are due to be affirmed. AFFIRMED.

BAKER, Judge, with whom CRAWFORD, Judge, joins (dissenting): I agree with the majority’s result on Issue I, but respectfully disagree with the analysis. *6I would not “assume without deciding” that the witnesses at issue were relevant and necessary. In my view, the defense did not carry its burden to demonstr

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ________________ No. 07-1405 ________________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v.