United States v. Williams, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Williams, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carter v. Jackson (caed, 2024-05-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. Jackson
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
(See id. at 3.) 16 Plaintiff also proffers an email by Mr. Petrescu on February 24, 2024 following up on 17 Mr. Petrescu’s request to preserve discovery in his potential defamation action.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PS) Hassan v. California Medical Board
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
The court may also 28 consider facts which may be judicially noticed, Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987), and matters of public record, including pleadings, orders, and other 2 papers filed with the court, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 3 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Findley v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2017 · confidence medium
Standards of Review A. Pro Se Litigants The court acknowledges that Mr. Findley is proceeding pro se, and is ,.not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading.,, Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1 555, 1558 (Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Washington Post
D.D.C. · 2010 · confidence medium
Times Co., 828 F.2d 1 10, 113 (2d Cir. 1987); Associated Press v. US.
cited Cited "see" Kenley Emergency Medicine v. The Schumacher Group of Louisiana
N.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 1 attending emergency physician and was the medical director at Chinese Hospital in San Francisco, 2 California.
cited Cited "see" Mundle v. Doxo Inc
W.D. Wash. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 1 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Roderrete McClure
5th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1079-80 (5th Cir. 1987) (although defense counsel believed clients’ plea agreement with Western District of Texas would preclude indictment related to ongoing investigation in Southern District of Texas and advised clients accordingly, government’s evidence supported trial court’s finding of no promise not to prosecute in Southern District), reh’g granted to different defendant, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1987).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Joseph T. Coveney and Francis M. Coveney
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir.), as corrected, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 896 , 108 S.Ct. 228 , 98 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987).
cited Cited "see" Kaempfer v. Brown
D.D.C. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. Jackson, 820 F.2d 1406, 1421 (5th Cir.1987), rehearing granted, 828 F.2d 1 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Douglas David Ascarrunz
5th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1084 (5th Cir.), vacated in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 1 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 228 , 259, 98 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987).
cited Cited "see" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSEPH T. COVENEY and FRANCIS M. COVENEY
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir.), as corrected, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 896 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ronald J. Perholtz, United States of America v. Franklin W. Jackson, United States of America v. Gregory W. Fletcher
D.C. Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See United States v. Mazzei, 700 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2124 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1983); see also United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1093-94 , modified in different part, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 228 , 98 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987); United States v. Qaoud, 777 F.2d 1105, 1115 (6th Cir.1985) (citing Mazzei), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098 , 106 S.Ct. 1499 , 89 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986); United States v. Hewes, 729 F.2d 1302, 1310-11 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1110 , 105 S.Ct. 790 , 83 L.Ed.2d 783 (1984); United States v.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Drake Williams, Vance E. Williams, Oscar Silva, Edward Orellana, Michael Sahs, Joseph C. Watson, Jan E. Grossman, Salvador Meraz, and Tanny Miller
85-2588.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 19, 1987.
828 F.2d 1
Published

828 F.2d 1

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Drake WILLIAMS, Vance E. Williams, Oscar Silva, Edward
Orellana, Michael Sahs, Joseph C. Watson, Jan E.
Grossman, Salvador Meraz, and Tanny
Miller, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 85-2588.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 8, 1987.
Certorari Denied Oct. 19, 1987.
See 108 S.Ct. 259.

David H. Berg, Joel Androphy, Houston, Tex., for Drake Williams.

Clyde W. Woody, Houston, Tex., for Vance Williams.

Dick DeGuerin, Houston, Tex., for Oscar Silva.

Robert S. Bennett, Houston, Tex., for Edward Orellana.

Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex., for Michael Sahs.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; James DeAnda, Judge.

1

(Opinion January 29, 5th Cir.1987, 809 F.2d 1072.)

ON MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD

2

Before GEE and HILL, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.[*]

ON MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD

PER CURIAM:

3

On consideration of the motion of appellant, Vance E. Williams, to correct the record and prepare a supplemental record,

4

IT IS ORDERED that the record is corrected to reflect that, contrary to the Court's statement in its opinion that "Appellant Vance E. Williams did not contend on appeal for a reversal for prejudicial publicity ... [or] adopt the arguments of his co-appellants" to that effect, he did in fact do so in a motion granted by the Clerk and overlooked by the Court.

5

As he did so, and since his situation as regards mid-trial publicity is factually indistinguishable from that of appellant Oscar Silva, he must receive the same treatment of the Court.

6

It is therefore ordered that, as to appellant Vance E. Williams, rehearing is GRANTED, the mandate is recalled, his convictions are REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the relief granted Oscar Silva in our earlier opinions.

*

District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation