Whenever I see his name on a speaking agenda I do not hesitate to attend. He has immersive experience on the battlefields of cyber security and attending an event of his will be an experience you will value for a long time. Michael has a way of connecting to his audience and understanding their perspectives. His background earns immediate credibility and his presence and speaking ability exceeded my expectations. I first heard Michael speak in 2016 at an Information Security conference sponsored by ISACA. Manager, Risk Advisory at Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP I highly recommend him! Stefanie Chambers, CPA, CIA Michael is an exceptional public speaker as he has great energy and can really grab the crowd and keep their attention throughout his presentation. I have seen Michael present twice now and he was a hit at both events. Happy to highly endorse Michael as a public speaker. As an audience member, I always appreciate speakers who prepare for their sessions and always leave Michael’s sessions with new knowledge. Michael recently gave a security awareness talk at McKesson and was able to easily connect with the audience by providing tangible examples for security awareness. Michael is an excellent speaker, engaging, interesting and always provides layers and levels of contextual information to help drive the message home. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.I have had several opportunities to attend Michael’s talks. We also deny Speed’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a stay of proceedings. Thus, although we affirm the district court’s order, we modify the dismissal of Speed’s remaining habeas claims to be without prejudice. 1999) (holding that when a prisoner has wrongly been denied his right to a direct appeal, he should not be forced to raise all possible claims against his criminal judgment in his first § 2255 motion and thereby “make the substantive objections to his conviction and sentence that his lawyer would have made for him on direct appeal”). Speed’s Because Speed’s remaining habeas claims could, at least arguably, be raised in Speed’s criminal appeal or a habeas motion, however, the district court should not have disposed of the remaining claims with prejudice. The district court did not err in reentering criminal judgment to begin his appellate period anew. The district court issued a certificate of appealability. court’s order In the order, the district court granted relief, in part, by directing vacatur and reentry of Speed’s criminal judgment so as to afford Speed an opportunity to file a criminal appeal, but denied Speed’s remaining habeas claims on their merits. PER CURIAM: Michael Speed appeals the district adjudicating his 28 U.S.C. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Block, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. (1:10-cr-00700-JFM-1 1:16-cv-02421-JFM) Submitted: JanuDecided: FebruBefore NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 16-7127 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |