green
Positive treatment
20.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gregg
United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359,1362 (11th Cir.)(discussing 4 whether false statement material under 18 U.S.C. 1001), cert denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gregg
United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir.)(discussing whether false statement material under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ), cert denied, 469 U.S. 828 , 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gregg
United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359,1362 (11th Cir.)(discussing whether false statement material under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ), cert denied, 469 U.S. 828 , 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. United States
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore Affirmed. * Justice Scalia joins all but Parts II-B and II-C of this opinion. 1 See United States v. Corsino, 812 F. 2d 26, 31, n. 3 (CA1 1987); United States v. Bernard, 384 F. 2d 915, 916 (CA2 1967); United States v. Greber, 760 F. 2d 68, 73 (CA3 1985); Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F. 2d 362, 367 (CA4 1985); United States v. Hausmann, 711 F. 2d 615, 616-617 (CA5 1983); United States v. Chandler, 752 F. 2d 1148, 1150-1151 (CA6 1985); United States v. Brantley, 786 F. 2d 1322, 1327 , and n. 2 (CA7 1986); United States v. Hicks, 619 F.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pascal Ballistrea
See, e.g., Klausner, 80 F.3d at 59 ; United States v. Hubbard, 16 F.3d 694, 698 (6th Cir.1994), rev’d in pt. on other grounds, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1754 , 131 L.Ed.2d 779 (1995); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hernan Francisco Perez-Tosta, Gustavo Javier Correa-Patino, Erasmo Perez-Aguilera, Luis Guillermo Rojas-Valdez
See United States v. Hilliard, 752 F.2d 578, 580 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 , 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); United States v. Griffin, 699 F.2d 1102, 1107 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gregory Strickland
This Court has consistently left resolution of ineffective assistance of counsel claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) proceedings whenever such claims were not first presented to the district court because, in such instances, the record on appeal is normally " 'insufficient for purposes of evaluating counsel's performance.' " United States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1081 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984)); United States v. Hill, 688 F.2d 18, 21-22 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1074 (1982). 33 We find that the pr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mark Lance Jones
As a general rule, we will not entertain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that are raised for the first time on appeal " 'because the record of the trial court's proceeding is normally insufficient for evaluating counsel's performance.' " United States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1081 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jerry Currie
"This rule is necessary because the record of the trial court's proceeding is normally insufficient for purposes of evaluating counsel's performance." United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stephen Franklin Oglesby, A/K/A David Allen Taylor (90-6574) and Larry Oglesby (91-5705)
Generally, we will not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, as " 'the record of the trial court's proceeding is normally insufficient for evaluating counsel's performance.' " United States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1981 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eugene MacKey
Swidan, 888 F.2d at 1081 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dorothy Williams, Melvin Smith, Eugene Moore, Willie Henry Jenkins, Ralph Lipsey, Jr.
United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 , 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Freddie Lee McDonald A/K/A Walter McDonald United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Carlos Ponton, Cross-Appellee
See United States v. Loyd, 743 F.2d 1555, 1567 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 , 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); United States v. Quesada-Rosadal, 685 F.2d 1281, 1283 (11th Cir.1982). 30 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harry D. Lowe
LEXIS 19802, we refused to consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim which was raised for the first time on appeal, explaining: "This rule is necessary because the record of the trial court's proceeding is normally insufficient for purposes of evaluating counsel's performance." Swidan, 888 F.2d at 1081 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Richard Knowles
See also United States v. Pelletier, 845 F.2d 1126, 1131 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Reveron Martinez, 836 F.2d 684, 688 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 (1984); United States v. Freeze, 707 F.2d 132, 138 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Griffin, 699 F.2d 1102, 1107-09 (11th Cir.1983). 7 If this court were to decide to hear Knowles' claim, we would be faced with the impossible task of evaluating counsel's performance at trial, because many of the matters Knowles now raises are not part of the present record.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Riyaid Swidan
United States v. Pelletier, 845 F.2d 1126, 1131 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 , 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); United States v. Freeze, 707 F.2d 132, 138 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas Mark Bevington
Accord, United States v. Carter, 815 F.2d 827, 829 (1st Cir.1987); United States v. Debango, 780 F.2d 81, 86 (D.C.Cir.1986); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Dubray, 727 F.2d 771 (8th Cir.1984). 7 AFFIRMED. * The Honorable Eugene E.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Louis Donald Lamberti
United States v. White, 765 F.2d 1469, 1472-73 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269, 1274-75 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Diaz, 690 F.2d 1352, 1357-58 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Lambert, 501 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1974) (en banc) (binding upon 11th Circuit; see Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marion Van Horn, Scott Bertelsen, Gary Balough, Dennis Kay, Robert Van Horn, Dennis Cason, Thomas Sikes, John Crosby Bertelsen, Joseph William Campbell, United States of America v. William Joseph Harvey, A/K/A Billy
Materiality 90 A statement is material for the purposes of section 1001 if it has a " 'natural tendency to influence, or be capable of affecting or influencing, a governmental function.' " United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. McGough, 510 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir.1975)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Van Horn
Materiality A statement is material for the purposes of section 1001 if it has a “ ‘natural tendency to influence, or be capable of affecting or influencing, a governmental function.’ ” United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. McGough, 510 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir.1975)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guillermo A. Alemany Rivera, United States of America v. Edgar M. Stella Perez
Counts two, three, and four all alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1982). 6 As the Eleventh Circuit recently observed in United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) (citations and footnotes omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984), The requirement [in 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ] that the falsification be of a “material” fact, while only contained in the first clause of the statute, has been read into the entire statute so as to exclude trivial falsifications from its coverage....
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Getty Refining & Marketing Co. v. Mt Fadi B
Hercules Carriers, Inc., 728 F.2d at 1359.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Getty Refining And Marketing Company v. Mt Fadi B
Hercules Carriers, Inc., 728 F.2d at 1359. 59 The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, after reviewing case law in search of an "overriding domestic policy translated into law" which would preempt application of Canadian law, "conclude[d] that there is no absolute rule either in Canada or the United States which forbids recovery for economic loss where the claimant has suffered no physical injury." Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Marriott Corp., 631 F.2d 441, 447, 448 (6th Cir.1980) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 921 , 101 S.Ct. 1370 , 67 L.Ed.2d 349 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. George Tom Darby, Constantine Yamanis, Vincent Calise, and Michael Yamanis
See United States v. Barshov, 733 F.2d 842, 850 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Williams, 716 F.2d 864, 865 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1884 , 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Isaac Marion, Sr.
See United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362-63 (11th Cir.1984) (concluding that false statements were material in part because they inconvenienced a government agency).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Holland
See United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359 , 1362 n. 4 (11th Cir. 1984); Harrell v. United States, 220 F.2d 516 (5th Cir.1955).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Craig Koblitz and Robert Scott Donley, and Marcelino J. Huerta, III and Anthony F. Gonzalez, Contemnors-Appellants
See United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359 , 1362 n. 4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 828 , 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). 13 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George Douglas Vaughn
See United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1361-63 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); United States v. Librach, 520 F.2d 550, 552 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 939 , 97 S.Ct. 354 , 50 L.Ed.2d 308 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James T. White, Jr., Arthur L. Boschen, New World Construction Company, Phillip W. Akwa, and Capital Communication Corporation
See United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank
(2×)
See Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. Florida, 720 F.2d 1201 (11th Cir.1983), aff'd by an equally divided court, 728 F.2d 1359 (11th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 128 , 83 L.Ed.2d 69 . .
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Louisiana v. Testbank
(2×)
See Hercules, 720 F.2d at 1201 (per curiam), aff'd, 11 Cir. 1984, 728 F.2d 1359 (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. George Vernon Hansen
See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 728 F.2d 1359 , 1362 n. 4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 112 , 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); but see, e.g., United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671 , 677 n. 8 (10th Cir.1981), *951 cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016 , 102 S.Ct. 1709 , 72 L.Ed.2d 133 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Complaint of Hercules Carriers, Inc., for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability as Owner of the M/v Summit Venture, Plaintiffs
v.
State of Florida, Canadian Transport Company, Clipper Maritime Co., Ltd., I.S. Joseph Company, Inc., Ultraocean S.A., Sabine Towing & Transportation Company, Claimants- in the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the Uscgc Blackthorn, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, Plaintiff v. I.S. Joseph Shipping, Ltd., I.S. Joseph Company, Inc., Clipper Maritime Co., Ltd., Pell Nederland, B v. Termar Navigation Company, Turbana Banana Corp., Gulfcoast Transit Co., Abc Containerline, N v. Wallenius Rederierna and Motorships, Inc., A/b Helsingfors Steamship Co., Ltd., and Alianza Naviera Argentina, D.A., Marthanassa Compania Naviera, S.A., Navios Corp. And Oceanside Ltd., Claimants-Appellants
v.
State of Florida, Canadian Transport Company, Clipper Maritime Co., Ltd., I.S. Joseph Company, Inc., Ultraocean S.A., Sabine Towing & Transportation Company, Claimants- in the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the Uscgc Blackthorn, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, Plaintiff v. I.S. Joseph Shipping, Ltd., I.S. Joseph Company, Inc., Clipper Maritime Co., Ltd., Pell Nederland, B v. Termar Navigation Company, Turbana Banana Corp., Gulfcoast Transit Co., Abc Containerline, N v. Wallenius Rederierna and Motorships, Inc., A/b Helsingfors Steamship Co., Ltd., and Alianza Naviera Argentina, D.A., Marthanassa Compania Naviera, S.A., Navios Corp. And Oceanside Ltd., Claimants-Appellants
81-6005.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 30, 1984.
728 F.2d 1359
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
In the Matter of the Complaint of HERCULES CARRIERS, INC.,
for exoneration from or limitation of liability as
Owner of the M/V SUMMIT VENTURE,
Plaintiffs- Appellees,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Claimants,
Canadian Transport Company, Clipper Maritime Co., Ltd., I.S.
Joseph Company, Inc., Ultraocean S.A., Sabine
Towing & Transportation Company,
Claimants- Appellants.
In the Matter of the Complaint of the UNITED STATES of
America, as Owner of the USCGC BLACKTHORN, for
exoneration from or limitation of
liability, Plaintiff- Appellee,
v.
I.S. JOSEPH SHIPPING, LTD., I.S. Joseph Company, Inc.,
Clipper Maritime Co., Ltd., Pell Nederland, B.V. Termar
Navigation Company, Turbana Banana Corp., Gulfcoast Transit
Co., ABC Containerline, N.V., Wallenius Rederierna and
Motorships, Inc., A/B Helsingfors Steamship Co., Ltd., and
Alianza Naviera Argentina, D.A., Marthanassa Compania
Naviera, S.A., Navios Corp. and Oceanside Ltd., et al.,
Claimants-Appellants.
Nos. 81-6005, 81-6078.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
March 30, 1984.
Jack C. Rinard, MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Ted R. Manry, III, Tampa, Fla., for claimants-appellants in both cases.
Holland & Knight, Gregg D. Thomas, Tampa, Fla., for claimants-appellants in No. 81-6078.
Kent Westmoreland and Robert C. Tarics, Houston, Tex., for Sabine Towing & Transp. Co.
Dewey R. Villareal, Jr., Tampa, Fla., for Kingston Shipping Co., Inc., Apex Marine Corp. and Hercules Carriers.
Arthur L. Schechter, Houston, Tex., for Kingston Shipping Co., Inc. and Apex Marine Corp.
James O. Davis, Jr., Tampa, Fla., for Judith T. Curtin.
Richard F. Ralph, Miami, Fla., for Greyhound Lines.
David G. Hanlon, Tampa, Fla., for State of Fla. (Dept. of Transp.).
David V. Hutchinson, Civ. Div., Torts Branch, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee in No. 81-6078.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, George C. Carr, Judge.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HENDERSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges. On petition for rehearing in banc of 720 F.2d 1201.
PER CURIAM:
1
Because the court is equally divided as to whether to affirm or reverse, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED by operation of law.