green
Positive treatment
5.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sipe
(2×)
FED.R.EVID. 609. 38 See, e.g., United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Abadie, 879 F.2d 1260, 1267 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Georgalis, 631 F.2d 1199, 1203 (5th Cir.1980) (holding that Rule 609 was violated when prosecutor attempted to cross-examine defendant about his deferred adjudication for felony check fraud); United States v. Dotson, 555 F.2d 134, 135 (5th Cir.1977) (holding that defendant truthfully stated on firearm purchase form that he had no felony convictions, given the fact that adjudication of guilt was deferred and sentence suspended on…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stauder
Stauder’s sentence is, therefore, AFFIRMED. * Stauder’s reliance on United States v. Hamilton, 48 F.3d 149, 153 (5th Cir.1995) ("when adjudication of guilt is deferred, there is no ‘conviction’ " within meaning of Fed.R.Evid. 609, which permits a witness to be questioned about prior convictions); Martinez-Montoya v. I.N.S., 904 F.2d 1018, 1025-26 (5th Cir.1990) (Texas deferred adjudication procedure does not result in final conviction within meaning of immigration laws); and United States v. Dotson, 555 F.2d 134, 135 (5th Cir.1977) (upholding dismissal of charge that defendant was a fe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hamilton
The few Fifth Circuit cases touching on this issue have indicated that when adjudication of guilt is deferred, there is no “conviction.” See United States v. Georgalis, 631 F.2d 1199, 1203 (5th Cir.1980) (holding that Rule 609 was violated when prosecutor attempted to cross-examine defendant about his deferred adjudication for felony check fraud); United States v. Dotson, 555 F.2d 134, 135 (5th Cir.1977) (holding that defendant truthfully stated on firearm purchase form that he had no felony convictions, given the fact that adjudication of guilt was deferred and sentence suspended on his p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Johnny Edward Stober
See also Braswell v. United States, 224 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.). 13 In United States v. Dotson, 555 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.), the Fifth Circuit held that where a district court had accepted a Nolo plea "specifically withholding any adjudication of guilt," there was no "conviction." See also Lott v. United States, 367 U.S. 421 , 81 S.Ct. 1563 , 6 L.Ed.2d 940 (a question under Rule 34). 14 Significant statements relative to our problem appear in United States v. Place, 561 F.2d 213 (10th Cir.), where we considered a previous conviction in California where defendant had pled guilty to grand theft.
Carter H. OGDEN, Zelma Ogden and Dorothy Ogden, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee; E. B. OGDEN, Jr. and Nancy A. Ogden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee; E. B. OGDEN, Jr. and Nancy A. Ogden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
76-1155.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 1, 1977.
John T. Green, Natchez, Miss., E. Clifton Hodge, Jr., University, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants., Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Joseph E. Brown, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, App. Sect., Ann Belan-ger Durney, Atty., Michael J. Roach, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice', Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Wisdom, Simpson, Tjof-Lat.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the taxpayers’ actions for refund of income taxes alleged to be due by virtue of deductions claimed for certain losses resulting from expropriation of their property by the Cuban government. See Ogden et al. v. United States, S.D.Miss. 1977, 432 F.Supp. 214. [1]
Perusal of the record and the briefs of the parties, followed by oral argument, persuades us that the trial court correctly determined that the claims for refund were time-barred under Section 165 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 165.
AFFIRMED.
1
. The district court’s opinion and order of dismissal are also reported at 37 A.F.T.R.2d 409.