United States v. Boldin, 779 F.2d 618 (11th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Boldin, 779 F.2d 618 (11th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Fernando Fernandez, Rafael Enrique Franjul, A/K/A Frank Sinatra, Defendants (ca11, 1986-08-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Fernando Fernandez, Rafael Enrique Franjul, A/K/A Frank Sinatra, Defendants
11th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
To prove a conspiracy to import a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963 , the government must show "(1) the existence of an agreement (2) to import (3) a controlled substance (4) into the United States and (5) the defendant's knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement." United States v. Boldin, 779 F.2d 618, 619 (11th Cir.) (modifying United States v. Boldin, 772 F.2d 719, 727 (11th Cir.1985)), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1269 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bollinger
11th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Title 21 U.S.C. § 963 requires proof of “(1) the existence of an agreement (2) to import (3) a controlled substance (4) into the United States and (5) the defendants’ knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Boldin, 779 F.2d 618, 619 (11th Cir.1986), modifying 772 F.2d 719, 727 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Steven Robert Bolinger, Robert Jerome McTeer Bruce Hayes Munro, Juan Carlos De La Fuente, United States of America v. Johnny Dean Hall, United States of America v. Juan Carlos De La Fuente, United States of America v. Oscar Cruz-Barrientos, United States of America v. Juan Carlos De La Fuente
11th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Sec. 963 requires proof of "(1) the existence of an agreement (2) to import (3) a controlled substance (4) into the United States and (5) the defendants' knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement." United States v. Boldin, 779 F.2d 618, 619 (11th Cir.1986), modifying 772 F.2d 719 , 727 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Erwin
5th Cir. · 1986 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord United States v. Boldin, 772 F.2d 719, 730-31 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 779 F.2d 618 (11th Cir), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1269 (1986); United States v. Schuster, 769 F.2d 337, 344-45 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1210 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Erwin
5th Cir. · 1986 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord United States v. Boldin, 772 F.2d 719, 730-31 (11th Cir.1985), modified on other grounds, 779 F.2d 618 (11th Cir), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1269 (1986); United States v. Schuster, 769 F.2d 337, 344-45 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1210 (1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Garland Claude Cochran
11th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
To establish a conspiracy, “[a]n overt act is not required, only proof that the defendant conspired to commit the prohibited offense.” United States v. Sanchez, 722 F.2d 1501, 1505 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, *1018 467 U.S. 1208 , 104 S.Ct. 2396 , 81 L.Ed.2d 353 (1984); see also United States v. Boldin, 779 F.2d 618, 619 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1269 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986) (amending prior opinion to omit an overt act requirement from the elements of proof necessary for a conspiracy in violation of section 846).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Charles Donald Boldin, Lewis Crump, John Oscar Luck, Johnny Ray Moore, Jack W. Scarborough, Leonard Bonnell Steele, and Luis Rosendo Escobar
84-8672.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 10, 1986.
779 F.2d 618
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

779 F.2d 618

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Charles Donald BOLDIN, Lewis Crump, John Oscar Luck, Johnny
Ray Moore, Jack W. Scarborough, Leonard Bonnell
Steele, and Luis Rosendo Escobar,
Defendants-Appellants.

No. 84-8672.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 10, 1986.

Alden W. Snead, Deacatur, Ga. (Court Appointed), for L. Crump.

E. Marcus Davis, Atlanta, Ga. (Court Appointed), for J. Luck.

Craig A. Gillen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Steve R. Wisebram, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

John Oliver Ellis, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Atlanta, Ga., for J. Scarborough.

P. Bruce Kirwan, Atlanta, Ga., for B. Steele.

Gino P. Negretti, Miami, Fla., for L. Escobar.

Eric Welch, Atlanta, Ga. (Court Appointed), for J. Moore.

Bobby D. Wilson, Atlanta, Ga., for C. Boldin.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion Sept. 27, 1985, 11 Cir., 772 F.2d 719).

Before VANCE and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges and LYNNE[*], District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

On petition for rehearing, we delete from our opinion reported at 772 F.2d 719, 727 (11th Cir.1985), those two paragraphs referenced and [5, 6] and insert the following:

2

Our application of the Blockburger/Albernaz test to the conspiracy counts in this case shows no double jeopardy violation. Proof sufficient to prove a violation of the RICO conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1962(d), requires that the government demonstrate (1) the existence of an agreement, (2) the existence of an enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce, (3) the defendant's association with the enterprise, (4) the defendant's participation in conducting the enterprise's affairs, and (5) that the defendant's participation was through a pattern of racketeering activity, indicated by the commission of at least two racketeering acts. United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804, 829 (5th Cir.1980).

3

Section 963 of Title 21, the conspiracy to import statute, requires proof of (1) the existence of an agreement (2) to import (3) a controlled substance (4) into the United States and (5) the defendant's knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement. United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1359-60 (11th Cir.), reh'g denied, 749 F.2d 733 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom. Hobson v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3476, 87 L.Ed.2d 613, Villanueva v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3477, 87 L.Ed.2d 613, Waldrop v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3488, 87 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985).

4

Further, proof sufficient to prove a violation of section 846 of Title 21 requires that the government show (1) the existence of an agreement (2) to possess (3) with intent to distribute (4) a controlled substance and (5) the defendant's knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement. United States v. Cruz, 765 F.2d 1020, 1025 (11th Cir.1985).

5

The petition for rehearing is in all other respects DENIED.

*

Honorable Seybourn H. Lynne, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation