green
Positive treatment
51.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
United States v. Allan Blume, Toby Pett, Roger Ward, David Bianchini
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
But cf. United States v. Neavill, 868 F.2d 1000 , vacated, reh’g en banc granted, 877 F.2d 1394 , appeal dismissed en banc, 886 F.2d 220 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Terrance Frank
(2×)
But see United States v. Neavill, 868 F.2d 1000 (8th Cir.), vacated, reh'g en banc granted, 877 F.2d 1394 (8th Cir.), appeal dismissed, 886 F.2d 220 (8th Cir.1989) (dismissed upon request of defendant; original opinion held that defendant was entitled to the instruction because of the Act). 101 The majority refers first to the sanctity of separation between judge and jury functions.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Don'tmix
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alphonse Bird
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Efrain Soto
(2×)
U.S. v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). 1 Soto does not contend on appeal that his plea, including the waiver, was not knowing and voluntary because of IAC, so we do not reach that question.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Noriega-Valenzuela
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Noriega-Valenzuela
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Kranovich
However, “we must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine *1113 the credibility of witnesses, resolve eviden-tiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict.” United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402, 408 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotations and alterations omitted), quoting United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kranovich
Second, Kranovich asserts that Sergeant Quick’s testimony that the grant amount was guaranteed conflicts with (1) a gov- ernment exhibit that indicated the $12,775 amount was based on an estimation, and (2) a memorandum written by Quick which stated, “based upon availability of funds, these smaller jurisdictions will receive the full 50% of requested funds in approved applications.” He contends that Quick “failed to provide any explanation or other evidence giving credence to this unfounded belief” that the funds were guaranteed. [4] However, “we must respect the exclusive province…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gonzales
“The issue of whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant in a criminal offense under the particular facts of the offense is reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Zweber, 913 F.2d 705, 708 (9th Cir.1990) (citing United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Long
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fonoti v. American Samoa Governnent
“An appellate court must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses ... by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict.” United States v. Nguyen, 284 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. George
See United States v. Kyllo, 37 F.3d 526, 531 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Verduzco-Laurel
See United States v. Kyllo, 37 F.3d 526, 531 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Pitts, 6 F.3d 1366, 1368, 1372-73 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Khanh Phuong Nguyen, United States of America v. Tuyet Mai Thi Phan
An appellate court “must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict.” United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Conrado GARCIA-GUIZAR, Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
Although the evidence need not show that Garcia "actually sold drugs to convict him as an aider and abettor," United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989), there must be some evidence to support the conviction, even under the plain error standard.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ricardo Chavez-Quintana
See United States v. Heldberg, 907 F.2d 91, 93-94 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (affirming enhancement where revolver was found with drugs in defendant's closet).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wesley G. Inscore
See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Application Note 3 (1997); United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222-23 (9th Cir.1989). 5 b.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David P. Gnirke
This court "must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict." United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Ramos, 558 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1977)); see also United States v. Mundi, 892 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1989) ("[T]he critical inquiry here is not whether the evidence was conflicting, but whether the government offered evidence from which …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6651, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,869, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,022 United States of America v. Jacob Harold Sherwood, United States of America v. Ray Marion Cuddy
Even if a few of the government's witnesses were somewhat unbelievable, "[w]e 'must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict.' " United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Ramos, 558 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sherwood
Even if a few of the government’s witnesses were somewhat unbelievable, “[w]e ‘must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evi-dentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict.’” United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Ramos, 558 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1977)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rafael Lorea
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Miguel Angel Villalba
This determination is " 'heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case,' and should be upheld unless clearly erroneous." United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Chia
On review for the sufficiency of evidence, we "must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict." United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tom Minh Trinh, Also Known as Tu Nguyen, United States of America v. Phu Chi Truong
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989). 42 Trinh argues that he was only a "minor participant" in the offense, and should have been granted a two-point reduction in his base offense level.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Ernest Ramos, United States of America v. Carlos Reyes Mendoza, United States of America v. Gonzalo Hernandez, United States of America v. Deborah Lynn Mendes
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Valdez, Jr. Juan C. Briseno and Kay Tanner
Adjustments for minimal or minor participation "are to be used infrequently." United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Aldo Garcia-Soberanis
"We must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve the evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved such matters in a manner which supports the verdict." United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cedric R. Allen v. Adrien Norman, William Bunnell
See United States v. Martinez, 967 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989). 8 To prove that Vazquez-Diaz knowingly possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Donna Kaye Lubben
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989). 10 In this case, to establish the existence of a single conspiracy, the government had to prove that an overall agreement existed among the conspirators.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Steven Richard Brock
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989). 10 In this case, to establish the existence of a single conspiracy, the government had to prove that an overall agreement existed among the conspirators.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fernando Lara-Gonzalez
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salvador Branch
United States v. Talbert, 710 F.2d 528 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1052 (1984); United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 221 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas Yau Siaw
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kelvin Neal
"We must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve the evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved such matters in a manner which supports the verdict." 1 United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (internal quotations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Larry Kenneth Gardner
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Will Smith, A/K/A \Smiley
Minor participant reductions are to be given infrequently, United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989), and only to those who are substantially less culpable than the average member of the conspiracy.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Quynh Khac Nguyen
Adjustments for minor participation "are to be used infrequently." United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). 13 Nguyen contends that he was merely a courier in the firearm sale.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garabet Mezian, AKA Garabet Mezkloukian
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. George Drucker
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert T. Reynolds
Moreover, " 'we must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict.' " United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Ramos, 558 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1977)). 11 We reject Reynolds' assertion that he was convicted of the conspiracy based on his status as a long-time employee of Lewis Construction and his familial relationship with the Lewises.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anthony L. Gurule
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Howard Dennis White v. James Rowland, Director
In making this determination, we 5 must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict. 6 United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Guadalupe Acosta, United States of America v. Jesus Mariscales, United States of America v. Luis Fierro, United States of America v. Manuel Ruiz Alvarez
United States v. Andrus, 925 F.2d 335, 337 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 249 (1991); United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 557 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989). 90 Application Note # 1 of the Commentary to 3B1.2(a) states: 91 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,013 United States of America v. Meyer Blinder
An appellate court “ ‘must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict.’ ” United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Ramos, 558 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rene Ramos-Rascon, United States of America v. Alejandro Gonzalez-Villegas
United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989), neither man possessed any drugs, drug paraphernalia, or weapons, and no testimony linked the men either to drug production or to drug distribution.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas Michael Chapman, II
The distinction in terminology is significant because we have jurisdiction to review the district court's failure to "adjust" downward, United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 221 (9th Cir.1989), but we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court's failure to "depart" downward.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Ralph D'Ambrosio
We must "respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict." See United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Ramos, 558 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1977)) (per curiam). 13 When the voice identification and physical identification is coupled with the expert testimony making a detailed comparison of the clothing, we believe there is ample evidence to susta…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oscar Manuel Carrillo-Rangel
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We "respect the exclusive province of the jury to ... resolve evidentiary conflicts." United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989). 4 To support a conviction for violation of section 924(c)(1), the evidence must show that a weapon was both "related to" the crime, and "available to" the defendant. "[A] firearm may be considered available for purposes of section 924(c)(1) if its physical proximity to the defendant at any time during the commission of the crime ... supports the inference that it emboldened him to commit the underlying offense." United States v. Torres-Medina, 935 F.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
James NEAVILL, Appellant
v.
James NEAVILL, Appellant
87-2692.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 5, 1989.
David H. Rubin, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant., Steven E. Holtshouser, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Lay, McMillian, Arnold, Gibson, Fagg, Bowman, Wollman, Magill, Beam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
By an order previously entered, the petition for rehearing en banc filed by the United States was granted. Thus, the panel opinion previously filed, United States v. Neavill, 868 F.2d 1000 (8th Cir.1989), was vacated by operation of law. Now pending before the Court en banc is Neavill’s appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the District Court.
Neavill has filed a motion to dismiss his own appeal. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. This action, of course, leaves in effect the judgment of conviction, which is final and not subject to further review on appeal.
It is so ordered.