Cases

17-0472 United States v. Wallace 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term, 2018 5 6 (Argued: October 18, 2018 Decided: September 3, 2019) 7 8 Docket No. 17‐0472 9 10 11 _____________________________________ 12 13

ORDER In United States v. Wallace, 557 Fed.Appx. 567 (7th Cir.2014), we reversed an order revoking Robert Wallace’s supervised release because of an error in the admission of hearsay testimony at his revocation hearing. On remand the district court conducted a fresh hearing and again revoked Wallace’s term of supervision. Wallace has filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed attorney asserts that any argument would be frivo

PER CURIAM. Wallace Carson robbed a convenience store by pulling a gun on the cashier. The police caught him in short order, and he pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and other charges. The district court sentenced Carson as an armed career criminal, classifying as violent felonies prior convictions for robbery and armed robbery. Carson now appeals, arguing that under

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Trenton Lee Wallace 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). Wallace has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration a

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Xavier Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012). A certificate o

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10339 Plaintiff-Appellee,

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10339 Plaintiff-Appellee,

*264Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rashawn Raki Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certific

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Thomas Wallace appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Wallace’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm

CCA 201100300. Appellee’s motion to attach is granted.

CCA 201100300. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and the record of trial, it is noted that the record reflects that the court-martial was called to order pursuant to the following orders: *360General Court-Martial Convening Order Number (GCMCO) 01-10 dated 16 February 2010 and GCMCO 01M-10, dated 21 Ja

663 F.3d 177 (2011) UNITED STATES of America v. Steven I. WALLACE, Appellant. No. 11-1969. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 5, 2011. Filed: December 6, 2011. James V. Wade, Esq., Ronald A. Krauss, Esq., Asst. Federal Public Defender—Appeals, Harrisburg, PA, Counsel for Appella

811 F.Supp.2d 1265 (2011) UNITED STATES of America v. David Lee WALLACE. Criminal Action No. 2:11-00109. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Charleston. September 9, 2011. *1266 William B. King, II, U.S. Attorney's Office, Charleston, WV, for United States of America. David R. Bungard, Mary Lou Newberger,

605 F.3d 477 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Waquita WALLACE, also known as Goddess, also known as Quita, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-2793. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: April 16, 2010. Filed: May 13, 2010. *478 Lucille Gardner Liggett, AFPD, argued, St. Louis,

[UNPUBLISHED] PER CURIAM. Timothy Wallace appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion for an order directing the court clerk to send him a cassette tape. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States Distri

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cruso R. Wallace appeals from the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record in this case and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the rea

[UNPUBLISHED] PER CURIAM. Timothy Wallace appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion for an order directing the court clerk to send him a cassette tape. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States Distri

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cruso R. Wallace appeals from the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record in this case and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the rea

MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), a sentencing court is expressly required to give its “reasons” for its sentence; that is a requirement of the legislative branch we must insist on maintaining and it did not occur in this case. The court below simply mistakenly failed to mention or acknowledge Wallace’s “disparity” argument. Where a defendant’s main point is stated a few minutes

MEMORANDUM ** William Wallace appeals his conviction on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Wallace contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during an investigatory stop of a vehicle in which Wallace was a passenger. Wallace also contends that the district court erred in failing to order the government