green
Positive treatment
28.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Henry London, Jr.
“Proof that the institution meets [the] definition of ‘bank’ at the time of the robbery is an essential element of the offense that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish federal jurisdiction.” United States v. Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933, 944 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir. 1989)) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Bedoy
An indictment is constructively amended in violation of the Fifth Amendment “when the trial court ‘through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of the crime on an alternative basis provided by the statute but not charged in the . indictment.’ ” United States v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mark James
An indictment is impermissibly amended only where a court “allows proof of an essential element of the crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.” United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jerrod Gardenhire
A constructive amendment of the indictment “occurs when the trial court ‘through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ayewoh
(2×)
Why don't they tell us?"); United States v. Adams, 305 F.3d 30, 37-38 (1st Cir.2002) (where defense counsel argued in closing that the government failed to call a particular informant, the prosecution did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof by fairly responding that defense counsel "could have called [him] if he wanted him"); Amirault v. Fair, 968 F.2d 1404, 1406 (1st Cir.1992) (where defense counsel suggested the prosecution was biased against the defendant because no one ever asked him his side of the story, the prosecution fairly responded by informing the jury that, while the law f…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Phillips
Constructive amendment of an indictment occurs when the trial court “through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of the crime on an alternative basis provided by the statute but not charged in the indictment.” United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094 , 109 S.Ct. 2441 , 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989) (citing Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215-19 , 80 S.Ct. 270, 272-74 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (I960)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nikita Hampton
The government was sloppy in this case, as in many others in which federally insured status is an element of the crime, e.g., United States v. Bindley, supra, 157 F.3d at 1238-39 ; United States v. Brunson, 907 F.2d 117 , *691 119-20 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 846 (5th Cir.1989), probably because the matter is usually stipulated.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hampton, Nikita
The government was sloppy in this case, as in many others in which federally insured status is an element of the crime, e.g., United States v. Bindley, supra, 157 F.3d at 1238-39 ; United States v. Brunson, 907 F.2d 117, 119-20 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 846 (5th Cir. 1989), probably because the matter is usually stipulated.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Griffin
"A constructive amendment occurs when the trial court 'through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.'" United States v. Arlen, 947 F.2d 139, 144 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Florita Bell Griffin, Terrence Bernard Roberts, Joe Lee Walker
“A constructive amendment occurs when the trial court ‘through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.’ ” United States v. Arlen, 947 F.2d 139, 144 (5th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guerrero
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The federal bank robbery statute under which Guerrero was convicted defines a “bank” as one whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), (f); United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Luis Robles-Vertiz
(2×)
A constructive amendment occurs when the government changes its theory during trial so as to urge the jury to convict on a basis broader than that charged in the indictment, or when the government is allowed to prove “an essential element of the crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.” Id. (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bell
United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1357 (5th Cir. 1994). 5 United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir. 1989). 2 a reasonable doubt that Bell knowingly used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.6 Several witnesses from both bank robberies testified that Bell displayed a firearm during each robbery and threatened customers and tellers with it.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salvatore
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A constructive amendment of the indictment can also occur if the Government is allowed to prove "an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment." United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salvatore
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A constructive amendment of the indictment can also occur if the Government is allowed to prove “an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.” United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Reyes
“A constructive amendment occurs when the trial court ‘through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094 , 109 S.Ct. 2441 , 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Morris T. Lewis v. United States
Knop, 701 F.2d at 672 ; see also United States v. Brunson, 907 F.2d 117, 118-19 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Schultz
(2×)
United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094 , 109 S.Ct. 2441 , 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989); United States v. Trice, 823 F.2d 80, 86 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Billy Lee Arlen
A constructive amendment occurs when the trial court “through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.” United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094 , 109 S.Ct. 2441 , 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., United States of America v. Baytank (Houston), Inc.
United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 848-49 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Earl Keith Lindell, United States of America v. Charles Roy McIntosh United States of America v. William E. Kinnear, Ii, United States of America v. Danny M. Loken
United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir.1989). 69 In support of the conspiracy counts, the Government relied on the same evidence that we find sufficient to support his importation and possession with intent to distribute convictions.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lindell
United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALVIS ALLEN BELL
United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1357 (5th Cir. 1994). 5 United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir. 1989). 2 a reasonable doubt that Bell knowingly used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.6 Several witnesses from both bank robberies testified that Bell displayed a firearm during each robbery and threatened customers and tellers with it.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALVIS ALLEN BELL
United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1357 (5th Cir. 1994). 5 United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir. 1989). 2 prosecution also introduced as exhibit 44 a copy of the FDIC certificate issued to Bank United.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE LUIS ROBLES-VERTIZ
A constructive amendment occurs when the government changes its theory during trial so as to urge the jury to convict on a basis broader than that charged in the indictment, or when the government is allowed to prove “an essential element of the crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.” Id. (quoting United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Osuagwu
See United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842 , 845–47 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Maner, 611 F.2d 107 , 108–12 (5th Cir. 1980); cf. United States v. Schultz, 17 F.3d 723, 727 (5th Cir. 1994) (explaining that if bank officials with personal knowledge of the bank’s insurance status had testified, then that testimony, if unchallenged, would have been sufficient).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fletcher
See United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.1989) (stating that constructive amendment of the indictment occurs if “the court, through its instructions and facts it permits into evidence, allows proof of an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Andrew v. Restivo, II
See United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.) ("If the court, through its instructions and facts it permits in evidence, allows proof of an essential element of a crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment, per se reversal is required.” (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094 , 109 S.Ct. 2441 , 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989); Ylda, 653 F.2d at 914 (holding that the evidence actually presented raised no possibility that the defendant's conviction was based on anything other than the facts set forth in the indictment). 21 .We further n…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Restivo
Consequently, there is no possibility that the jury was permitted to convict Restivo))in view of the trial evidence))on a ground (the intent to promote theft or embezzlement) not charged in the indictment.20 18 Young, 730 F.2d at 223 ; see Stirone, 361 U.S. at 213 , 80 S. Ct. at 271 ("The crucial question . . . is whether [the defendant] was convicted of an offense not charged in the indictment."). 19 Young, 730 F.2d at 223 (quoting United States v. Ylda, 653 F.2d 912, 914 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981)). 20 See United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 847 (5th Cir.) ("If the court, through its instru…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward J. Elkins
See United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2441 , 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989); United States v. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374, 1385 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 784 , 102 L.Ed.2d 776 (1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Del A.
v.
Edwin Edwards, Individually and as Governor of the State of Louisiana
v.
Edwin Edwards, Individually and as Governor of the State of Louisiana
88-3154.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 28, 1989.
Published
DEL A., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Edwin EDWARDS, Individually and as Governor of the State of
Louisiana, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 88-3154.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 28, 1989.
William A. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., David A. Dalia, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Emile W. Schneider, Mary Beck Widmann, Section Chief, Office of Gen. Counsel, Arthur A. Lemann, III, Lemann, O'Hara, Miles & White, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellants.
Steven Scheckman, New Orleans Legal Assistance Corp., Ann McLaine, and Mark A. Moreau, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Christopher T. Dunn, ACLU; Christopher A. Hansen, and Marcia Robinson Lowry, on brief, New York City, for ACLU.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Morey L. Sear, District Judge.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, KING, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH and DUHE, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
1
The defendants-appellants have moved to dismiss their appeal in light of the plaintiffs' dismissal with prejudice of their damage claims. This court having vacated the panel opinion by granting rehearing en banc, 862 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir.1988), the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED.