green
Positive treatment
26.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bryan Chappell
Similarly, in United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam), we held that the defendant’s “simultaneous” robbery of six persons in a restaurant constituted a single criminal episode, even though the defendant was convicted of six counts of armed robbery for this conduct.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Willoughby
When Petty petitioned for a writ of certiorari, the Solicitor General confessed error, noting that the “legislative history strongly supports the conclusion that the statute was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” See United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Moody
Compare United States v. Godinez, 998 F.2d 471, 472 (7th Cir.1993) (“Ordering six poker players at the same game to empty their pockets is one criminal episode.”); United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (holding that defendant’s conviction for six counts of armed robbery based on his “simultaneous robbery of six individuals at a restaurant” should be counted as a single conviction); Hudspeth, 42 F.3d at 1023 (7th Cir.1994) (en banc) (“Congress added the phrase ‘committed on occasions different from one another’ to address situations similar to Petty , where a defe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mark Davidson
When Petty petitioned for a writ of certiorari, the Solicitor General confessed error, noting that “the legislative history strongly supports the conclusion that the statute was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” See United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Davidson
When Petty petitioned for a writ of certio-rari, the Solicitor General confessed error, noting that “the legislative history strongly supports the conclusion that the statute was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” See United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lonnie Allen Thomas
United States v. Brady, 988 F.2d 664 , 668 n. 5 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir. 1987) (a defendant's six convictions for six armed robberies committed simultaneously could count as only one predicate offense for purposes of the enhanced penalty of 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a) (repealed 1986), the predecessor statute of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas
The court mentioned this fact in order to clarify that this was not another) with United States v. Murphy, 107 F.3d 1199 , 1208 a case where the two victims and the two men were riding around in the car the entire time that these incidents occurred. 6 United States v. Thomas No. 98-6740 No. 98-6740 United States v. Thomas 11 Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir. 1987) (a defendant’s six _________________ convictions for six armed robberies committed simultaneously could count as only one predicate offense for CONCURRENCE purposes of the enhanced penalty of 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a) _________________ (r…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5580, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7792 United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Bradley Scott Phillips, Defendant-Appellant- Cross-Appellee
The court examined cases where each defendant engaged in a "continuous course of conduct." Id. (citing United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 889 (2d Cir.1989) (kidnapping and rape of single victim held to be single criminal episode); United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (simultaneous robbery of six individuals held to be a single criminal episode); United States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d 847 , 850 n. 2 (8th Cir.1987) (simultaneous robbery of two individuals is a single criminal episode)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Phillips
The court examined eases where each defendant engaged in a “continuous course of conduct.” Id. (citing United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 889 (2d Cir.1989) (kidnapping and rape of single victim held to be single criminal episode); United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (simultaneous robbery of six individuals held to be a single criminal episode); United States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d 847 , 850 n. 2 (8th Cir.1987) (simultaneous robbery of two individuals is a single criminal episode)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Robert Rice
United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (acknowledging the Solicitor General's concession) (Petty II).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas L. Hudspeth
(6×)
United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1057 , 108 S.Ct. 2827 , 100 L.Ed.2d 928 (1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Garcia
To be treated as separate convictions the offenses “should have occurred on occasions ‘distinct in time.’” Id. at 147 (quoting United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oscar Ellis, Jr., United States of America v. Oscar Ellis, Jr.
See United States v. Pedigo, 879 F.2d 1315, 1317 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Schoolcraft, 879 F.2d 64, 74 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 995 (1989); United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 889 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 (1989); United States v. Herbert, 860 F.2d 620, 622 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1070 (1989); United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 497 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 857 (1988); United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 910 (1988); United States v. Rush, 840 F.2d 580, 581 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. P…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael James Brady
(2×)
The Solicitor General argued that the legislative history of the Act “strongly supported] the conclusion that the statute was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Christopher Jay McCorvey United States of America v. Christopher Jay McCorvey
THE TWO 1988 BURGLARY I CONVICTIONS 28 Under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1), predicate criminal convictions must be committed on "occasions different from one another." In Antonie, this court explained that § 924(e) " 'was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.' " 953 F.2d at 498 (quoting United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1057 (1988) (holding only one offense exists where defendant simultaneously robbed six restaurant customers)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas L. Hudspeth
See id.; United States v. Washington, 898 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 891 (2d Cir.1989); United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 497 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987); United States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d 847 , 850 n. 2 (8th Cir.1987). 4 The only information we have on the 1983 burglaries, however, is contained in the PSR, which summarily describes the burglaries as follows: "The defendant, Thomas Edwards, and Ronnie Edwards entered Homestyle Cleaners, Melocreme Donut, and Farmer's Insurance Company, all located in Spr…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joel Roy Blackwood
United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (1987) (Petty II).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William Lawrence Potter
The presentence investigation report describes them as “part of a single common scheme or plan.” The Eighth Circuit has held that the predecessor to § 924(e)(1), 18 U.S.C. 1202(a), “was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1057 , 108 S.Ct. 2827 , 100 L.Ed.2d 928 (1988); see also, United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 889-90 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2456 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1989…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Donald D. Payton, II
Cf. United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (conviction of six counts of armed robbery stemming from a *1092 single incident constitutes one conviction for purposes of enhanced sentencing statute), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2827 , 100 L.Ed.2d 928 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Balascsak, Robert J.
(2×)
On remand, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit apparently accepted the Solicitor General’s view that “the legislative history strongly supports the conclusion that the statute was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” 828 F.2d at 3.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edwin A. Towne, Jr.
See United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 497 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 147 , 102 L.Ed.2d 119 (1988); United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 264 , 102 L.Ed.2d 252 (1988); United States v. Rush, 840 F.2d 580, 581 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Wicks, 833 F.2d 192, 194 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 87 , 102 L.Ed.2d 63 (1988); United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2827 , 100 L.Ed.2d 928 (1988); United States v. Greene, 810 F.2d 999, 1000 (11th C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Johnson
According to the Solicitor General’s interpretation, as adopted by the Eighth Circuit in Petty on remand, “the legislative history strongly supports the conclusion that the [ACCA] was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” Petty, 828 F.2d at 3 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John J. Gillies, Jr.
He argues, however, that each pair of convictions should count as only one for the purposes of § 924(e), because “the statute was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode.” United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, Apr. 5, 1988.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Towne
United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Quinonez v. Does 1 through 5
See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 2 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 However, the court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, 4 unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wooden v. United States
See United States v. Petty, 828 F. 2d 2, 3 (1987) (per curiam). 12 WOODEN v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court More important here, Congress amended ACCA to pre- vent future Pettys from being sentenced as career crimi- nals.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wooden v. United States
See United States v. Petty, 828 F. 2d 2, 3 (1987) (per curiam). 12 WOODEN v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court More important here, Congress amended ACCA to pre- vent future Pettys from being sentenced as career crimi- nals.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wooden v. United States
See United States v. Petty, 828 F. 2d 2, 3 (1987) (per curiam). 12 WOODEN v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court More important here, Congress amended ACCA to pre- vent future Pettys from being sentenced as career crimi- nals.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Selby
See United States v. Petty, 798 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir.1986), vacated by, 481 U.S. 1034 , 107 S.Ct. 1968 , 95 L.Ed.2d 810 (1987) (“Petty I”) and United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2 (8th Cir.1987) (“Petty II") (interpreting “three previous convictions” in the sentencing enhancement provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a), predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)); United States v. Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139 (4th Cir.1990) (interpreting the meaning of “two or more prior convictions” in the sentencing enhancement statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) (1) (A) (iii)). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Piontek Young
See United States v. Petty, 798 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir.1986), rev’d on other grounds, 828 F.2d 2 (8th Cir.1987). *746 The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pope
See United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (holding that robbing six people in restaurant "stick up" constituted single episode despite defendant's six robbery convictions); see also United States v. Graves, 60 F.3d 1183, 1187 (6th Cir.1995) (holding that burglary and assault on police officer constituted single episode of criminal conduct where crimes were committed at same location, and defendant had not yet left scene of first crime when he committed the second).
discussed
Cited "see"
48 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 773, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 929 United States of America v. Clifford Kelly Pope, Cross-Appellee
See United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (holding that robbing six people in restaurant “stick up” constituted single episode despite defendant’s six robbery convictions); see also United States v. Graves, 60 F.3d 1188 , 1187 (6th Cir.1995) (holding that burglary and assault on police officer constituted single episode of criminal conduct where crimes were committed at same location, and defendant had not yet left scene of first crime when he committed the second).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ricardo A. Godinez
See United States v. Petty, 798 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir.1986), vacated, 481 U.S. 1034 , 107 S.Ct. 1968 , 95 L.Ed.2d 810 sentence reduced on remand, 828 F.2d 2 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lem Hughes
See United States v. Petty, 798 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir.1986), vacated and remanded, Petty v. United States, 481 U.S. 1034 , 107 S.Ct. 1968 , 95 L.Ed.2d 810 (1987), on remand, United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (adopting Solicitor General's argument that 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a)(1), a sentencing enhancement statute, was “intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode”), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1057 , 108 S.Ct. 2827 , 100 L.Ed.2d 928 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, Willie Herbert, Jr.
See United States v. Petty, 798 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir.1986), vacated — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1968 , 95 L.Ed.2d 810 (1987), on remand, 828 F.2d 2 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2827 , 100 L.Ed.2d 928 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McCray Johnson
See United States v. Petty, 798 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir.1986), rev’d on other grounds, 828 F.2d 2 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ervin Abbott
Thus, we found that these sales could not be counted as separate ACCA predicates because the sales occurred “almost simultaneously, and thus the offenses were temporally proximate.” Id. at 744 ; see also United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (holding that six convictions for robbery committed by simultaneously robbing six people in a restaurant could not be counted as separate offenses for ACCA purposes).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Alvin Gene Washington, Cross-Appellee
For example, in United States v. Towne, an extended attack on a single victim which included both a rape and kidnapping was held to be a single criminal episode because both offenses “were part of a continuous course conduct which was directed at a single victim.” 870 F.2d 880, 889 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2456 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1989) (emphasis in original); see also Petty, 828 F.2d at 3 (simultaneous robbery of six individuals a single criminal episode); United States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d 847 , 850 n. 2 (8th Cir.1987) (government conceded that single incident in…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David D. Schoolcraft
(2×)
See also United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 497 (1st Cir.) (" 'the statute was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time, not multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode' ") (quoting United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2827 , 100 L.Ed.2d 928 (1988)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 147 , 102 L.Ed.2d 119 (1988); Wicks, 833 F.2d at 194 (two burglaries which occurred on the same night, but were committed at two different places at two different times could be counted as sepa…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Anthony VIERA, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Anthony VIERA, Defendant-Appellant
86-2161.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 8, 1987.
828 F.2d 2
Paul Nugent, Mike DeGeurin, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Susan L. Yarbrough, James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Clark, Gee, Rubin, Reavley, Politz, Randall, Johnson, Williams, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Hill, Jones.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion June 3, 1987, 5 Cir., 1987, 819 F.2d 498)
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.