United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Stephanie Dasinger, 650 F. App'x 664 (11th Cir. 2016)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1275 Applying pinkerton liability to section 924(c) offenses9 citing casesholding that liability under Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47 (1946), continues to apply to ' 924(c) offenses subsequent to Bailey2 citing courts put it this way · 8 listed here
  • United States v. Stephanie Dasinger, 650 F. App'x 664 (11th Cir. 2016).unpublished
    United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir.1998); see also Isnadin, 742 F.3d at 1307 .
  • United States v. Ramon Blanco, 327 F. App'x 139 (11th Cir. 2009).unpublished
    United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir.1998).
  • United States v. Bryan Timothyleenard Smith, 255 F. App'x 391 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir.1998).
  • United States v. Tanisha Crissy Taylor, 135 F. App'x 384 (11th Cir. 2005).unpublished
    United States v. Pringle, 350 F.3d 1172, 1175-76 (11th Cir.2003); United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065, 1099 (11th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir.1998)).
  • United States v. Jerry Pringle, 350 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2003).published
    Diaz, 248 F.3d at 1099 (citing United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir.1998)).
  • Castillo v. United States, 200 F.3d 735 (11th Cir. 2000).published 2 cites
    (holding that liability under Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47 (1946), continues to apply to ' 924(c) offenses subsequent to Bailey)
  • United States v. Quinton Bannister, 285 F. App'x 621 (11th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    (holding co-conspirator liability for a § 924(c) offense may be established under Pinkerton)
  • United States v. McIntosh, No. 98-7048 (10th Cir. Feb. 3, 1999).unpublished
    See, e.g. , United States v. Bell , 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 1998) (and cases cited therein).
At page 1274 Applying co-conspirator liability to section 924(e) cases8 citing casesreferring to this rule as “Pinkerton liability1 citing court put it this way · 6 listed here
  • United States v. Esnel Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2014).published 2 cites
    “The [G]overnment must also establish some nexus between the firearm and the drug trafficking offense to show possession was in furtherance of the crime.” United States v. Gunn, 369 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v.…
  • United States v. Shaheed Rashard Thompson, 544 F. App'x 870 (11th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065, 1099-100 (11th Cir.2001); United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1274-75 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam).
  • United States v. Mark Anthony Myrie, 479 F. App'x 898 (11th Cir. 2012).unpublished
    United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1274-75 (11th Cir.1998). “[A]n absent conspirator may be found guilty of violating § 924(c) if the carrying or using of a firearm by a coconspirator is a reasonably foreseeable action of the conspiracy…
  • United States v. Banan Mahmoud Qasim, 294 F. App'x 509 (11th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    (referring to this rule as “Pinkerton liability)
  • United States v. Manuel Gunn, 369 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2004).published
    United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1274-75 (11th Cir.1998).
  • United States v. Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 1999).published 3 cites
    As the majority points out, every conspirator is liable for every co-conspirator’s reasonably foreseeable actions. 17 Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); United States v. Bell, 137 F.3d…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee.
v.
Yvette BELL, Defendant-Appellant
96-2626.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 23, 1998.
Published opinion
137 F.3d 1274
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5715
1998 WL 126972
James H. McCarty, Gainesville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant., R. Jerome Sanford, Asst. U.S. Atty., Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Cox, Carnes, Roney.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This case requires us to decide if Pinkerton co-conspirator liability continues to apply to section 924(e) cases after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). We conclude that it does and therefore affirm the district court’s refusal to permit Bell to withdraw her guilty plea.

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) punishes individuals who use or carry a firearm in connection with drug trafficking or a crime of violence. In Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647-48, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 1184-85, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), the Supreme Court held that criminal[*1275] defendants are liable for the reasonably foreseeable actions of their co-conspirators. Pinkerton liability is well established in this Circuit, see, e.g. United States v. Broadwell, 870 F.2d 594, 603-04 (11th Cir.1989), and although we have apparently never directly confronted the issue, the general rule among the circuits has been that the Pinkerton doctrine is applicable in section 924(c) eases, see, e.g. United States v. McManus, 23 F.3d 878, 883 (4th Cir.1994), United States v. Castaneda, 9 F.3d 761, 765 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1041, 114 S.Ct. 1564, 128 L.Ed.2d 210 (1994); United States v. Davis, 1 F.3d 1014, 1017 (10th Cir.1993).

The district court correctly held that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bailey did not preclude the application of Pinkerton liability in Bell’s case. In Bailey, the Court held that a conviction for “using” a firearm required proof of active employment of a weapon, and that proof of mere possession was insufficient. See Bailey, 516 U.S. at 142, 116 S.Ct. at 506. Bailey interpreted the meaning of the word “use.” Every appellate court opinion we have found on this issue has squarely held that Pinkerton liability continues to apply to section 924(c) offenses subsequent to Bailey. See e.g. Woodruff v. United States, 131 F.3d 1238, 1243 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Fonseca-Caro, 114 F.3d 906, 907 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 895, 139 L.Ed.2d 880 (1998); United States v. Wilson, 105 F.3d 219, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 133, 139 L.Ed.2d 82 (1997); United States v. Myers, 102 F.3d 227, 237-38 (6th Cir. 1996), — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1720, 137 L.Ed.2d 843 (1997); United States v. Rodger, 100 F.3d 90, 91 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 145, 139 L.Ed.2d 92 (1997); United States v. Pimentel, 83 F.3d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1996).

We agree with the reasoning of our sister circuits and now expressly hold that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey did not eliminate Pinkerton liability.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the district court should have allowed plaintiff to withdraw her pre-Bailey guilty plea because without Pinkerton, the government’s proffer was insufficient to constitute a crime. Since the government’s proffer was sufficient factually to provide the basis for Pinkerton liability, the court properly denied the motion to withdraw.

AFFIRMED.