green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
27.6 score
“palomo's request for specific performance, if granted, would entitle him to vacation of the sentence and resentencing before a different judge, with the benefit of a 5k1.1 motion by the government.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Spencer
palomo's request for specific performance, if granted, would entitle him to vacation of the sentence and resentencing before a different judge, with the benefit of a 5k1.1 motion by the government.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salim Balouch
See United States v. Akins, 746 F.3d 590, 609-10 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Williams
In a different case, the court said that a defendant whose plea agreement was breached “has the option of seeking one of two remedies on appeal: (1) specific performance, which requires that the sentence be vacated and that the defendant be resentenced by a different judge; or (2) withdrawal of the guilty plea, and the opportunity to plead anew, which requires vacation of both the conviction and the sentence.” United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jehoni Williams
Id. at 768 (quoting United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir.1993)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rodriguez
As support for the different-judge requirement, our court cited Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 263 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) (requiring that defendant who seeks to have his sentence vacated for breach of a plea agreement be re-sentenced by a different judge, though the original judge committed no error), and United States v. Saling, 205 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir.2000) (holding such a defendant may choose between “specific performance [of the plea agreement], which requires that the sentence be vacated and that the defendant be resentenced by a different judge; or ... withdra…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Estrada-Perez
United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 937 , 114 S.Ct. 358 , 126 L.Ed.2d 322 (1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carter
Saling, 205 F.3d at 767-68 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lee
P. 32(e); United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sanford
United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America v. Alvin Peterson, Sr.
(2×)
Compare United States v. Thayer, 204 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Hicks, 129 F.3d 376, 378 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Fant, 974 F.2d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 560 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Benson, 836 F.2d 1133, 1135 (8th Cir. 1988) with United States v. Lawlor, 168 F.3d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Courtois, 131 F.3d 937 , 938 & n.2 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d 1357, 1360 (3d Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Daniel Saling, Jr.
United States v. Ewing, 480 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir.1973). 14 . 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Diana Gonzales Buchanan, Fedell Anderson, Vernon Bonner, and John Buchanan
United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 258 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 358 , 126 L.Ed.2d 322 (1993); United States v. Ponce, 917 F.2d 841, 842 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 940 , 111 S.Ct. 1398 , 113 L.Ed.2d 453 (1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Zuniga
United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 358 , 126 L.Ed.2d 322 (1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sheila Smith and Byron Vandrea Phillips, A/K/A Vincent Andrian Phillips, A/K/A Byron A. Phillips
(2×)
United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 258 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 358 , 126 L.Ed.2d 322 (1993); United States v. Mitchell, 964 F.2d 454, 457 (5th Cir.1992). .See Evbuomwan, 992 F.2d at 74 . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DONALD GENE BROOKS
Cf. United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 937 (1993).) The plea agreement provided the parties would stipulate to a calculation of the maximum potential guidelines; although not binding on the district court, the stipulated guidelines were the same as set forth in the PSR.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eli Palacios
(2×)
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257-58 (5th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tavarez-Modesto
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253 , 257-58 (5th Cir.1993); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment, (n.4).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Craig
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257-58 (5th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Crenshaw
See U.S. v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 255-57 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 358 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Garcia
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that the defendant was an organizer because 1 Garcia concedes that at least five persons participated in the drug trafficking scheme. -3- he attended an important meeting with a person “responsible for transporting large shipments of cocaine.”) Garcia additionally told the confidential informant that he had a contact in Florida who could help out in transporting the drugs should one of the conspirators falter.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Branam
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Castaneda
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Posada-Rios
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir.1993). 8.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Posada-Rios
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir.1993). 8.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Palomo
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256-57 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 358 , 126 L.Ed.2d 322 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lee W. Roberts, Also Known as Kurlee Roberts, Also Known as Dr. Lee Susan Byers and Jackie Wood
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257-58 (5th Cir.) (no error in rejecting defendant’s argument his father’s role as organizer of drug conspiracy led to his § 3B1.1(b) increase where defendant met with drug transporter, participated in shipping drugs, recruited a coconspirator, and travelled to Mexico to pay a bribe), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 358 , 126 L.Ed.2d 322 (1993); United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1481 (5th Cir.) (no error in applying § 3B1.1(b) to organizer’s wife who negotiated price, recruited other conspirators, and directed other members), cert. d…
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARIO HERNANDEZ, also known as Marachi
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC JOSEPH STAAB
See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 358 (1993). * Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Chaim Levy
See, e.g., Beets v. Collins, 986 F.2d 1478, 1483-84 (5th Cir.) (discussing the universal applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuyler), reh’g en banc granted, 998 F.2d 253 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gilliam
See also, Beets v. Collins, 986 F.2d 1478 (5th Cir.1993), reh’g granted, 998 F.2d 253 (5th Cir.1993) (requiring a showing that an attorney actively represented conflicting interests “stems from the concern that potential conflicts will be dressed up as Sixth Amendment violations”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Betty Lou BEETS, Petitioner-Appellee Cross-Appellant,
v.
James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellant Cross-Appellee
v.
James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellant Cross-Appellee
91-4606.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 5, 1993.
William C. Zapalac, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for respondent-appellant, cross-appellee., Joe Margulies, Robert L. MeGlasson, TX Resource Center, Austin, TX, for petitioner-appellee, cross-appellant.
Politz, King, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.