Cases

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derrick K. Ussery, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of app

PER CURIAM. Reginald Lamont Ussery appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Ussery, No. 5:94-cr-00095-F-1 (E.D.N.C. June 17, 20

PER CURIAM. Reginald Lamont Ussery appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Ussery, No. 5:94-cr-00095-F-1 (E.D.N.C. June 17, 20

PER CURIAM: Reginald Lamont Ussery appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion to compel the government to file a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion on his behalf and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. Ussery, No. CR-94-95 (E.D.N.C. July 12 & </

PER CURIAM: Reginald Lamont Ussery appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel specific performance of a plea agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Ussery, No. 5:94-cr-95-1F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.

968 F.2d 22 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. UNI

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.

HEMINGWAY, Senior Judge, concurring in the result: In accordance with his pleas, the accused was convicted of manufacture and possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of Articles 134 and 92, U.C.M.J., 10 U.S.C. §§ 934, 892. At trial the accused was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 180 days, forfeitures of $382.00 per month for six months and reduction to airman

[Cite as State v. Ussery, 2020-Ohio-4771.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney

FARLEY, Judge: This is an appeal from a June 30, 1993, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) which denied the appellant’s claim for residuals of pneumonia, including schizophrenia, seizure disorder, and atypical organic brain syndrome. A timely appeal to this Court followed. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will vacate the Board’s decisi

HOLDAWAY, Judge, concurring: It appears that the applicant, Mr. Ussery, who now applies for “reimbursement of attomeys’s fees” under EAJA, was represented pro bono and thus did not either in fact or *55in law incur attorney fees. The EAJA statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), as I read it, provides only for reimbursement to the prevailing party for “fe

179 B.R. 737 (1995) In the Matter of Scott A. USSERY, Debtor. BARNETT BANK OF SOUTHEAST GEORGIA, N.A., Plaintiff, v. Scott A. USSERY, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 94-20390. Adv. No. 94-2048. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division. March 15, 1995. *738 Bob Cunningham, Brunswick, GA, for plaintiff.

Opinion issued November 26, 2019 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00540-CR ——————————— ROY EUGENE USSERY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Ap

156 S.W.3d 810 (2005) Tracy Marie USSERY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mark Ellis USSERY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 26219. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two. March 3, 2005. *812 Richard L. Anderson, Branson West, for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge. <

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Facts Joseph Gibson as Executor of the Estate of Cynthia Gibson (plaintiff) appeals from an order dismissing his claims on a motion for directed verdict. The claim arises from a 27 April 2003 visit by Cynthia Gibson1 (Cynthia) to an open house at Carolyn's Mill, an historic mill. Carolyn's Mill is owned by William B. Ussery, Carolyn B. Ussery, Carolyn's Mill, Inc., and Carolyn's Mill Condominium Association (to

316 S.W.3d 570 (2009) In the Matter of John USSERY, et al. v. The CITY OF COLUMBIA. No. M2008-01113-COA-R3-CV. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section, at Nashville. March 25, 2009 Session. June 1, 2009. Order on Denial of Rehearing June 30, 2009. Application for Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court March 15, 201

*1334ORDER LESLIE J. ABRAMS, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT The Parties in the above-captioned matter have cross-moved for summary judgment. (Docs. 19, 21.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. BACKGROUND

Rulon, C.J.: The State of Kansas appeals the imposition of a substantial downward durational and dispositional departure sentence imposed upon defendant Brian K. Ussery for his conviction for rape. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. The defendant was charged with statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl, S.S., in violation of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3502(a)(2). The State, for some unknown reason, has faile