green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
38.5 score
“evidence that government agents merely afforded the defendant an opportunity or facilities for the commission of the crime is insufficient to warrant the entrapment instruction.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Clarence Blevins
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
evidence that government agents merely afforded the defendant an opportunity or facilities for the commission of the crime is insufficient to warrant the entrapment instruction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Crisler
(2×)
“Government inducement consists of the creative activity of law enforcement officials in spurring an individual to crime.” United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Streaty v. United States
Predisposition focuses on whether the defendant was an “unwary innocent” or an “unwary criminal.” Id.; United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jason Montgomery
United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kendrick Alexander
United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Reynaldo Macedo-Flores
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In Bradfield , police paid a confidential informant a contingency fee to successfully induce Bradfield to participate in a drug deal. 113 F.3d at 518, 523 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon Darby v. the New York Times Company and James C. McKinley, Jr.
As stated by the court in Nelson, the ultimate question revolves around "’whether criminal 20 intent originated with the defendant or with government agents.’” United States v. Nelson, 732 F.3d at 514 , quoting United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997) (Emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arthur Gilmore, Jr.
(2×)
United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997); see also Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 , 112 S.Ct. 1535 , 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992) ("In their zeal to enforce the law, however, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.”); Gutierrez, 343 F.3d at 419 ("The core question regarding entrapment is whether the criminal intent originally resided in the defendant; in other words, whether the government plant…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hai Schaffer
(2×)
Both elements assist the court in making the “critical determination” of “whether criminal intent originated with the defendant or with the government agents.” United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Loren Willis
Stated differently, “[t]he critical determination in an entrapment defense is whether criminal intent originated with the defendant or with the government agents.” United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon Darby v. the New York Times Company and James C. McKinley, Jr.
As stated by the court in Nelson, the ultimate question revolves around "’whether criminal 20 intent originated with the defendant or with government agents.’” United States v. Nelson, 732 F.3d at 514 , quoting United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997) (Emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas Nelson, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911, 918 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas Nelson, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911, 918 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Corey Lewis
“Before he will be entitled to an entrapment defense, ... [a] defendant bears the burden of presenting evidence of both ‘(1) his lack of predisposition to commit the offense and (2) some governmental involvement and inducement more substantial than simply providing an opportunity or facilities to commit the offense.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Frederick Smith
United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Theagene
(3×)
See United States v. Gutierrez, 343 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Smith
In order to be entitled to an entrapment instruction, a defendant must present “sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment.” United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 520-21 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gonzalez
United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gutierrez
Id. (quoting United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997)). 7 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Orin Ogle
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Thus, “when. a defendant’s properly requested entrapment instruction is undergirded by evidence sufficient to support a reasonable jury’s finding of entrapment, the district court errs reversibly by not adequately charging the jury on the theory of entrapment.” United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Okelberry
United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard D. Barnett Virgil R. Drake
Bradfield, 113 F.3d at 521. 12 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Billy Mac Thompson
“Predisposition focuses on whether the defendant was ... willing to commit the offense before first being approached by government agents.” United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir.1997) (emphasis omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BILLY MAC THOMPSON
“Predisposition focuses on whether the defendant was . . . willing to commit the offense before first being approached by government agents.” United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997) (emphasis omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VICTOR GONZALEZ
Because government inducement is the “creative activity of law enforcement officials in spurring an individual to crime”, United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997), only if Longoria’s actions differed following his cooperation may they arguably constitute such inducement; otherwise they are simply not “creative activity”.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL G. ROBERTS
(3×)
The revised opinion relies solely on entrapment. 113 F.3d at 524.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Medrano-Ramos
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting de novo review in the context of district court refusing to offer “theory of defense” requested by defendant).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hagen
(2×)
A defendant is generally entitled “to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988); see United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997) (reiterating the standard from Mathews “that evidence in support of a defensive theory must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to rule in favor of the defendant on that theory”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Berdy
(2×)
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Martin Gardea
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 525-26 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Udoh
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 526 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smocks v. United States Marshall
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515 , 526 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.1992); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Addo
Although Addo did invoke the STA and requested a dismissal of the indictment in his closing trial argument, that motion came too late as waiver occurs unless the motion to dismiss on this ground comes prior to trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (a)(2); see United States v. Brad-field, 113 F.3d 515 , 526 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Gomez, 67 F.3d 1515, 1519 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Alvarez, 860 F.2d 801, 821-22 (7th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cherian
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Addison
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Barron
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Williams
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dukes
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMAS S. MACKIE, JR
See Brinkmann v. Dallas 4 was “sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment.” See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 520-21 (5th Cir. 1997); Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GEORGE WASHINGTON SIMMONS
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GREGORY LEON PALMER
See United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 520-21 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cabrera
See, e.g., United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1997) (requiring defendants to make a “prima facie showing of both . . . lack of predisposition and true inducement by the government” to be entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment, at which point the burden shifts to the government to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was [pre]disposed”); United States v. Mayweather, 991 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that trial courts must first “determine if the defendant has met his initial burden of producing sufficient evidence of government …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pedro Alvarado
“We review de novo a district court’s refusal to offer an instruction for a criminal defense that, if credited, would preclude a guilty verdict.” United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911, 917 (5th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Gentry, 839 F.2d 1065, 1071 (5th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Francisco Rodriguez
See, e.g., United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir.1997) (finding sufficient evidence of inducement where the government persisted in the face of a defendant’s resistance by making “innumerable telephone calls to [the defendant] to entice him to do a drug deal”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Harrigan
Coffin, 76 F.3d at 497; see also U.S. v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515 , 526 (5th Cir.1997) (stating that the defendant’s failure to move for dismissal prior to an entry of a plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of the right to dismissal for a Speedy Trial Act violation).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States of America
v.
Hugo Roman Almendarez-torres
v.
Hugo Roman Almendarez-torres
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10254
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HUGO ROMAN ALMENDAREZ-TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CR-124-A
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1996
Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10254
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HUGO ROMAN ALMENDAREZ-TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CR-124-A
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1996
Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hugo Roman Almendarez-Torres appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to § 1326(a), simple reentry, but that he was sentenced as if he had pleaded guilty to reentry following a conviction for an aggravated felony for purposes of § 1326(b)(2). His argument is foreclosed by this court's opinion
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
No. 96-10254 - 2 - in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1076 (1994).
AFFIRMED.