green
Positive treatment
12.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Hunsberger
Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir.1998) (emphasis supplied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Johnson
See, e.g., United States v. Femandez-Hernandez, 652 F.3d 56, 65 (1st Cir.2011) (“The court’s questioning of the prospective jurors outside the presence of the Defendant] was justified, and, in any event, [Defendant] waived any right to be present pursuant to Rule 43 by his failure to object at trial.”); United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350, 1369 (4th Cir.1996) (“We agree that the defendants had the right to be present during the bench conferences with the jurors, but we conclude that the defendants waived their right by failing to object before the district court swore in the jury.”);…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts v. Bowersox
The Eighth Circuit has itself several times acknowledged the disagreement in its decisions: "There appears to be a decisional split within our Circuit on whether plain-error review by a state appellate court waives a procedural default by a habeas petitioner, allowing collateral review by this court." Mack v. Caspari, 92 F.3d 637 , 641 n. 6 (8th Cir.1996); see also Burns v. Gammon, 173 F.3d 1089, 1095 (8th Cir.1999); Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir.1998); Sweet v. Delo, 125 F.3d 1144, 1152 (8th Cir.1997); Mitchell v. Kemna, 109 F.3d 494, 496 (8th Cir.1997); Hornbuckle v. Gro…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Todd Johnson
See Part I.B. below. 13066 UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON lone, 148 F.3d 940, 941 (8th Cir. 1998) (also under § 5K1.1), vacated & reh’g en banc granted, 148 F.3d 940 , reinstated & reh’g en banc denied, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998).6 B.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Alexander Perez
See Mullins, 399 F.3d at 890 . 2 At oral argument, Perez asserted that United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 1998), reinstated by 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998), controls this case.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Schwartz
See United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 , reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 148 F.3d 940 , opinion reinstated, reh’g en banc denied, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir.1998).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Schwartz
See United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 , reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 148 F.3d 940 , opinion reinstated, reh’g en banc denied, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Deborah Dalton
See United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.) (the district court may weigh factors other than the substantial assistance provided by the defendant in exercising its downward-departure discretion), reinstated, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998); but see United States v. Stockdall, 45 F.3d 1257, 1261 (8th Cir. 1995) (only factors relating to the defendant’s cooperation should influence the extent of a substantial-assistance departure).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Deborah Marie Dalton
See United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.) (the district court may weigh factors other than the substantial assistance provided by the defendant in exercising its downward-departure discretion), reinstated, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir.1998); but see United States v. Stockdall, 45 F.3d 1257, 1261 (8th Cir.1995) (only factors relating to the defendant’s cooperation should influence the extent of a substantial-assistance departure).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Butler
See United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 , reh’g en banc granted, opin- ion vacated, 148 F.3d 940 , opinion reinstated, reh’g en banc denied, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Donntraie Lemanes Butler
See United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 , reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 148 F.3d 940 , opinion reinstated, reh’g en banc denied, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir.1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Mark E. Graham v. Dave Dormire, Superintendent/warden, Jefferson City Correctional Center
See Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1152 , 119 S.Ct. 2035 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Mark E. Graham v. Dave Dormire
See Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1152 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Troynell Thomas v. Michael Bowersox
See Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 2035 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Troynell Thomas v. Michael Bowersox
See Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 2035 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
No. 98-3572
See United States v. Licona-Lopez, 163 F.3d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir.1998). 11 Wilkerson argues that he is in the same situation as the defendant in United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 , vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 148 F.3d 940 , reinstated and reh'g en banc denied, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir.1998), where there was a plea agreement requiring substantial assistance but where the government refused to file a downward departure motion after it heard that the defendant had recently used drugs.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Branden Clark v. Leann Bertsch
See, e.g., Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir.1998) (noting the “decisional split” on this procedural bar issue and stating, “Given the divergence within this circuit, we are free to choose which line of cases to follow.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joe Reyes
The court held that the defendant’s absence from part of voir dire was “not enough to establish a constitutional violation” because “[c]onsid-ering [the defendant’s] absence from individual voir dire in light of the entire jury selection process, [the defendant] had ample opportunity to observe jurors during voir dire and exercise peremptory challenges accordingly.” Id. at 1021 ; see also Kilmartin v. Dormire, 161 F.3d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir.1998) (holding that the defendant’s constitutional right to be present was not violated when the trial court spoke with six prospective jurors …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Moreno-Trevino
Section 5K1.1 provides that “[u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines.” Importantly, a prosecutor’s discretion as to Section 5K1.1 motions is not unlimited. “[F]ederal district courts have authority to review a prosecutor’s refusal to file a substantial-assistance motion and to grant a remedy if they find that the refusal [ (a)] was based on an unconstitutional motive” or (b) “was not rationally related …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
James L. ANZALONE, Appellant
v.
James L. ANZALONE, Appellant
97-2932.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 7, 1998.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
On the motion of the en banc court, the September 22, 1998 order granting en bane consideration is vacated, the court’s opinion and judgment of June 30, 1998 are reinstated, and the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied. Chief Judge Bowman, Judge McMillian, Judge Fagg, Judge Hansen, and Judge Murphy would grant the suggestion.