green
Positive treatment
14.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tu Ngoc Tran
See United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Narte, 197 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Beltran, 165 F.3d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Allen
See United States v. Jordan, 291 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Narte, 197 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sean Allen, United States of America v. Eric Adam Dixon, United States of America v. Jeremiah Skidmore, United States of America v. Jason Guy Potter, United States of America v. Ryan Flaherty, United States of America v. Michael Flom
The court agreed and denied Potter's motion for a mistrial 30 The district court used the 2001 version of the Sentencing Guidelines, which the defendants do not challenge 31 We review for clear error the district court's finding that Allen, Dixon, and Skidmore were leaders or organizers See United States v. Jordan, 291 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Narte, 197 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Charles Robinson Berry
“In determining whether a defendant controlled or organized others, the district court should consider the following factors: (1) the exercise of decision making authority, (2) the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, (3) the recruitment of accomplices, (4) the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, (5) the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, (6) the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and (7) the degree of control and authority exercised over others.” United States v. Narte, 197 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir.1999) (intern…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gaines
United States v. Narte, 197 F.3d 959, 965-66 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Lonich
See United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir.), amended by 197 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that any error in admitting testimony was harmless because “[t]he 7 government presented compelling evidence of [defendant’s] guilt”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jared Atkins
See United States v. Narte, 197 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that base level does not fully account for the offense if it is possible to violate the Guidelines section under other statutes without incurring the enhancement).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerard Smith
See United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 939-40 (9th Cir.), amended by 197 F.3d 959, 959 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dalrymple
See United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 943 (9th Cir.), amended by 197 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Swan
See United States v. Narte, 197 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Eyoum, 84 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bowman
See United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 937-38 (9th Cir.1999) (finding two mail fraud schemes inextricably intertwined where second scheme was continuation of first, after first scheme failed), amended by 197 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Valencia
See United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 943 (9th Cir.) (concluding that reversal is justified “only if it appears more probable than not that prosecutorial misconduct materially affected the fairness of the trial”), amended by 197 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Arlt
See United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 940-41 , as modified by 197 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Steel Davis
See, e.g., United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928 , 937–38 (9th Cir. 1999), amended by 197 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 1999) (allowing evidence of uncharged unlawful activity of a company under a new name as evidence of the knowledge of the illegality of the charged conduct under a different name); United States v. Serang, 156 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 1998) (allowing, in a mail fraud case, evidence of a co-conspirator’s prior unsuccessful attempts to set fire to a restaurant).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Thongsangoune SAYAKHOM, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Thongsangoune SAYAKHOM, Defendant-Appellant
97-10197.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 1, 1999.
Beezer, Trott, King.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
ORDER
The Opinion filed on July 27, 1999 and appearing at 186 F.3d 928 (1999), is amended as follows:
On slip opinion page 8403 substitute the following language for the language contained in footnote 4
Sayakhom also argues that the recording was not offered to prove its truth but instead to show her language fluency. Although she initially raised this argument before the district court, she did not object to the district court’s ruling, despite being afforded the opportunity to do so. CR 136, p. 129. When no objection is made, we review for plain error, but may reverse only if the defendant persuades us that the error was prejudicial in that it “affected the outcome of the district court proceeding.” United States v. Tisor, 96 F.3d 370, 376 (9th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Given the abundance of evidence regarding Sayakhom’s proficiency in the English language, see Section VIII A 1, we are not persuaded that the exclusion of the recording affected the outcome of the trial.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.