green
Positive treatment
Trending · 73 recent citers
46.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bradford
II A “We review de novo a district court’s decision not to dismiss an allegedly duplicitous indictment.” United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); accord United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780, 790 (9th Cir. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Douglas C. (Concurrence)
However, a duplicitous count may violate a defendant’s constitutional rights . . . if it violates the [s]ixth [amendment] . . . .’’ (Footnotes omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.)), appeal dismissed, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 13-2970 (October 26, 2013). 12 See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘‘[t]he rules about . . . duplicity are pleading rules, the violation of which is not fatal to an indictment’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)) (overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lope…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Douglas C.
However, a duplicitous count may violate a defendant’s constitutional rights . . . if it violates the [s]ixth [amendment] . . . .’’ (Footnotes omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.)), appeal dismissed, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 13-2970 (October 26, 2013). 12 See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘‘[t]he rules about . . . duplicity are pleading rules, the violation of which is not fatal to an indictment’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)) (overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lope…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mary Ayala
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Urrea
The court could have returned the three improperly-used peremptory strikes to the prosecutor, see United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), or it could have found those strikes forfeited as a consequence of the Batson violation, see Luciano, 860 N.Y.S.2d 452 , 890 N.E.2d at 218 ; Peetz v. State, 180 S.W.3d 755, 760-61 (Tex. App. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Bernardo
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 916 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1 cmt. n. 5), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Hernandez-Guardado, 228 F.3d 1017, 1027-28 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bell
One vice of duplicity is that a jury may find a defendant guilty on a count without having reached a unanimous verdict on the commission of a particular offehse.” United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. State
See, eg., United States v. Lloyd, 462 F.3d 510, 514-15 (6th Cir.2006); United States v. Hughes, 310 F.3d 557, 561 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Ramirez-Martines, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Karam, 37 F.3d 1280, 1286 (8th Cir.1994). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Amir Andrews (069594)
See Rice v. White, 660 F.3d 242, 258 (6th Cir.2011) (recognizing judicial discretion, but disapproving subsequent selection of African-American juror to cure taint caused by prior purposeful discrimination), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2751 , 183 L.Ed.2d 630 (2012); United States v. Walker, 490 F.3d 1282, 1294-95 , 1295 n. 14 (11th *286 Cir.2007) (approving reinstatement of four improperly struck jurors and declining to award additional peremptory challenges to replace “lost” challenges), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1257 , 128 S.Ct. 1649 , 170 L.Ed.2d 354 (2008); United States v. Ramirez-…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jerome Mancuso
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other ground by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Nelson
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
If the challenged juror is aware of the fact that he or she was challenged by the prosecutor, then that juror should not be reinstated because there is a substantial likelihood that he or she will have developed a bias against the prosecutor."). [16] See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir.2001) (found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reseating illegally challenged jurors and returning those peremptory challenges to the government, noting the lack of malicious intent on the part of the prosecutor and the court's ability and duty to guarantee fair…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Samaniego-Lara
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Caraballo
See, e.g., United States v. Cuyler, 298 F.3d 387, 391 (5th Cir.2002) ("Aliens who are unrestrained easily can be thrown from the bed of the pickup in the event of an accident or other driving maneuver of the sort that is unavoidable in highway driving.”); United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 916 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that application of the enhancement was appropriate where the defendant transported twenty people in a van without seats or seat belts); United States v. Ortiz, 242 F.3d 1078, 1078-79 (8th Cir.2001) (affirming application of the enhancement when the defendant trans…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Muhm
Leipold, Federal Practice and Procedure § 145 (citing United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Hughes, 310 F.3d 557, 560 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Shumpert Hood, 210 F.3d 660, 663 (6th Cir.2000); United States v. Karam, 37 F.3d 1280, 1286 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Robinson, 651 F.2d 1188, 1194 (6th Cir.1981); United States v. Robinson, 651 F.2d 1188, 1194 (6th Cir.1981); United States v. Henry, 504 F.2d 1335, 1338 (10th Cir.1974); Franklin v. United States, 330 F.2d 205, 207 (D.C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lawson
“An indictment is duplicitous where a single count joins two or more distinct and separate offenses.” United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 930 , 123 S.Ct. 330 , 154 L.Ed.2d 226 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Aguila
Second, he argues that his conviction on all counts should be reversed because the alleged crimes were never “completed” under United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 912 (9th Cir.2001), overruled by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“An indictment is duplicitous where a single count joins two or more distinct and separate offenses.” United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Torres-Flores
(2×)
In United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 916 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), defendant was found to have transported “twenty people in a dilapidated van without seats or seat belts.” This case is most similar to United States v. Dixon, 201 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir.2000), which involved the transportation of aliens in the hatchback area of a vehicle.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Torres-Flores
In United States v. Ramirez- Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 916 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), defendant was found to have transported “twenty people in a dilapidated van without seats or seat belts.” This case is most similar to United States v. Dixon, 201 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2000), which involved the transportation of aliens in the hatchback area of a vehicle.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lopez
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The “immediate destination” theory adopted by a three-judge panel of our court in United States v. Ramirez- Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 912 (9th Cir. 2001), originated in United States v. Aslam, 936 F.2d 751, 755 (2d Cir. 1991).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Angelica Lopez
(9×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The “immediate destination” theory adopted by a three-judge panel of our court in United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 912 (9th Cir.2001), originated in United States v. Aslam, 936 F.2d 751, 755 (2d Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Luis Hernandez-Millan
Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d at 1138 (citing United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 916 (9th Cir. 2001)), (which held that application of the enhancement was not clearly erroneous where the defendant transported 20 people in a dilapidated van without seats or seat belts); United States v. Ortiz, 242 F.3d 1078, 1078-79 (8th Cir.2001) (affirming application of the enhancement when the defendant transported 23 aliens in a van equipped with seat belts for only 14).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Willis
See Sturdivant, 244 F.3d at 79 (noting that prejudice can be avoided “by a jury instruction that ensures that the jury is unanimous as to the conduct underlying the conviction”); United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (“a defendant indicted pursuant to a duplicitous indictment may be properly prosecuted and convicted if either (1) the government elects between the charges in the offending count, or (2) the court provides an instruction requiring all members of the jury to agree as to which of the distinct charges the defendant actually committed”), cert. de…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Qualls v. Goldsmith
“An indictment is duplicitous where a single count joins two or more distinct and separate offenses.” United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. WR Grace
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Latysheva
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 914 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gann
Id. at 796-99 ; United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (sufficiency does not cure duplicity).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Omar Rodriguez-Lopez
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Cuyler, 298 F.3d 387, 391 (5th Cir.2002) ("Aliens who are unrestrained easily can be thrown from the bed of the pickup in the event of an accident or other driving maneuver of the sort that is unavoidable in highway driving."); United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 916 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that application of the enhancement was appropriate where the defendant transported 20 people in a van without seats or seat belts); United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 808-09 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming application of the enhancement where aliens were transported i…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shetty
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tolentino-Tavera
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 914 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
Defendants cite United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 912 (9th Cir.2001), and United States v. Aslam, 936 F.2d 751, 755 (2d Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Technic Services, Inc. And Rick Rushing
(2×)
Even assuming that Count 1 was duplicitous because it charged violations of three separate work practice standards, instruction 25 remedied the problem by requiring all members of the jury to “agree[ ] as to which particular standard or standards were violated.” See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that a duplicitous indictment can be cured by a specific unanimity instruction).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Figueroa
United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cuyler
See United States v. Jose- Gonzalez, 2002 WL 1056556 (10th Cir.) (affirming district court’s departure from sentencing guidelines in sentencing defendant who transported illegal aliens and had a car accident, resulting in the deaths of three illegal aliens and injuries to ten other illegal aliens; appellate court did not question application of § 2L1.1(b)(5)); United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 916 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[P]utting twenty people in a dilapidated van without seats or seat belts undoubtedly constitutes ‘carrying substantially more passengers than the rated capacit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Yañez-Del Rio
We have previously recognized “that attempting to transport, which requires specific intent, and actual transportation, which requires a showing of general intent, are separate and distinct crimes.” United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 914 (9th Cir.2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hernandez
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Relying on United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) in which we found that Congress intended to incorporate the well-established common law meaning of “attempt” into 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , we stated that “attempting to transport, which requires specific intent, and actual transportation, which requires a showing of general intent, are separate and distinct crimes.” Ramirez-Martinez, supra, 273 F.3d at 914.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Carlos Romero-Coriche
Id. at 1098; see Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d at 915 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Latka
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Spotted Elk-Booth, Jr.
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (“[A] defendant indicted pursuant to a duplicitous indictment may be properly prosecuted and convicted if ... the court provides an instruction requiring all members of the jury to agree as to which of the distinct charges the defendant actually committed.”), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 , 1188 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rosalinda DeLeon
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 914 (9th Cir.2001), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
Jimenez v. City of Chicago
People v. Luciano, 10 N.Y.3d 499 , 860 N.Y.S.2d 452 , 890 N.E.2d 214, 219 (2008); see Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d at 910 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Elk-Booth
See Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d at 915 (duplicitous indictment can be remedied by requiring all members of the jury to agree as to which of the distinct charges the defendant actually committed)
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gypsy Lawson
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
Fimbres Gonzalez v. Holder
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining the an indictment may not charge two or more distinct offenses in one criminal count).
cited
Cited "see"
Fimbres Gonzalez v. Holder
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining the an indictment may not charge two or more distinct offenses in one criminal count).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ortiz-Romero
See United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 , 1191 & n. 7 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (“reject[ing] the ‘immediate destination’ (or ultimate destination) test set forth in United States v. Ramirez-Martinez [ 273 F.3d 903 (9th Cir.2001) ]”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. D'Amico
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 913-14 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Whittington
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Balderas-Granados
See id. at 909 (enumerating the issues raised in the appeal).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Denton
See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Mark Steven Hitchcock
v.
Mark Steven Hitchcock
00-10251.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 26, 2001.
Published
273 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2001)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK STEVEN HITCHCOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-10251
D.C. No. CR-98-00716-ACK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Filed September 26, 2001
Before: B. Fletcher, Canby, Jr., and Paez, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~903]1
We grant the government's motion to withdraw the panel decision in this case pending resolution of United States v. Buckland, 259 F.3d 1157, No. 99-30285. The government has consented to Hitchcock's interim release with appropriate restrictions.
[*~907]2
We order the interim release of Hitchcock under appropriate restrictions to be set by the district court.
[*~910]3
We remand to the district court for that limited purpose.
ORDER
December 5, 2001
[*~915]4
We direct that the unpublished order filed September 26, 2001 withdrawing our opinion be re-filed as a published order.