United States v. Terry M. Bardwell, 956 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Terry M. Bardwell, 956 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it is self-evident that while perfect attendance is not a necessary element of all jobs, reasonably regular and predictable attendance is necessary for many.”
76 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 29 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Meade v. Gen. Motors LLC (gand, 2018-06-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Meade v. Gen. Motors LLC
N.D. Ga. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
it is self-evident that while perfect attendance is not a necessary element of all jobs, reasonably regular and predictable attendance is necessary for many.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hankinson v. King
D. Minnesota · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Davis Mem’l Hosp., 956 F.2d 1163 , *3 (4th Cir.1992) (holding that a de facto merger did not occur between two nonprofits because, among other reasons, the two organizations “were at all times governed by separate boards and the personnel of [the two hospitals] were never fully consolidated”); Crawford Harbor Assocs. v. Blake Const. Co., 661 F.Supp, 880, 884 (E.D.Va.1987) (explaining that the de facto merger exception test requires a “continuity of ownership”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rosell v. Kelliher
D.D.C. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Plaintiff himself attests to the fact that upon his retirement in May 2004, he became “dependent on his ailing mother and sister under whose care he now survives.” (Compl. ¶ 13B; see also id. ¶¶ 11A-I, 13A) And in the very same letter that plaintiff uses to support his request for reasonable accommodation, Dr. Blank reports that “since July 2003 [plaintiffs] conditions have worsened, resulting in seven hospitalizations for a variety of reasons since that time.” (M.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mitchell v. Eastman Kodak Co.
M.D. Penn. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Walders v. Garrett, 765 F.Supp. 303 , 305 n. 5 (E.D.Va.1991) (citations to medical journals omitted), affirmed without opinion, 956 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir.1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Terry M. Bardwell
90-5719.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 5, 1992.
956 F.2d 1163
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%
Citer courts: N.D. Georgia (1)

956 F.2d 1163

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Terry M. BARDWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-5719.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 26, 1991.
Decided March 5, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-70-K)

Richard C. Bittner, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.

Richard D. Bennett, United States Attorney, E. Thomas Roberts, Assistant United States Attorney, Katharine J. Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Terry M. Bardwell was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute phencyclidine (PCP) and distribution of PCP. He later cooperated with the government and his sentence was eventually reduced on the government's motion for a departure due to substantial assistance. Bardwell contends in this appeal that the district court erred in refusing to consider his rehabilitative efforts in determining the extent of the departure. We affirm.

2

A motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 is committed to the discretion of the district court, and we review its decision under the abuse of discretion standard. In this case, Bardwell claims that the district court did not understand its authority to depart on the basis of his efforts and achievements since his incarceration. The record discloses that the district court found that it might have authority to consider factors apart from the value of Bardwell's cooperation in deciding the extent of its departure, but that it found no other factor present which warranted departure. The court correctly viewed post-offense conduct such as rehabilitation as not providing a basis for departure. See United States v. Van Dyke, 895 F.2d 984 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 59 U.S.L.W. 3246 (U.S.1990). Under these circumstances, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in departing only to the extent requested by the government based on Bardwell's cooperation.

3

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

4

AFFIRMED.