green
Positive treatment
35.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terrence Gates
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Because Gates did not move for a judgment of acquittal, our review of the sufficiency of the evidence presented to convict him is limited to determining “whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice,” which results only if (1) “the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt” or (2) the evidence on a key element of the offense is “so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see FED.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Francisco Vasquez
As observed by this court in United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840 , 1 United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Galvan, 949 F.2d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 1991). 2 United States v. Dowl, 619 F.3d 494, 500 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002). 4 Case: 12-41194 Document: 00512755577 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 No. 12-41194 847 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1157 (5th Cir. 1993)), “[a]n agreement may be inferred from a ‘concert of action.’” Such a concert of action was shown in this ca…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Vasquez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Galvan, 949 F.2d 777, 783 (5th Cir.1991). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clemente Valdez, Jr.
This “occurs [inter alia ] where the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez, 480 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dennis Sorto-Enamorado
This “occurs [inter alia ] where the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez, 480 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Israel Perez-Solis
United States v. Dowl, 619 F.3d 494, 500 (5th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003)). 6 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edmundo Cisneros, Jr.
United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003)). 5 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dowl
Therefore, we review for a “manifest miscarriage of justice” and will reverse only if “the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or contains evidence on a key element of the offense that is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003) (alteration and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Barraza
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
However, because Barraza did not renew his motion for acquittal at the close of the evidence, “we review his claim to determine whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003) (citation and marks omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Garrison
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
If, however, the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not properly preserved, the review is to determine “whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice.” See United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Galvan, 949 F.2d 777, 783 (5th Cir.1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Payne
Because Payne failed to renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence, our review is for a “manifest miscarriage of justice,” which “occurs only where the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or contains evidence on a key element of the offense [that is] so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir .2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; brackets in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez
His claim, therefore, is reviewed for a “manifest miscarriage of justice.”1 “That occurs only where ‘the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or contains evidence on a key element of the offense [that is] so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.’”2 In making this determination, the evidence “must be considered ‘in the light most favorable to the government, giving the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences and credibility choices.’”3 The Government concedes that the confidential informant’s out-of-court identification of Rodriguez-Martinez as…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Uvalle-Patricio
Where a defendant fails to timely renew a Rule 29 motion for acquittal, this court will not vacate a conviction absent a "manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003) (internal quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez
United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Galvan, 949 F.2d 777, 783 (5th Cir.1991)). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hernandez-Acuna
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Moncrief
Under a miscarriage of justice standard of review, the conviction can be reversed only if "the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or contains evidence on a key element of the offense [that is] so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking." United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003). 9 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Avants
E.g., United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Diaz
When, as here, the defendant fails “to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the trial, we review his claim [only] to determine “whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harris
Thus, we review his claim to determine only “whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 2003).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Cleto Tarin
(3×)
See United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cabrera Saucedo
See United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770-71 (5th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lang
See United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Antonio Sherrod
See United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003) (reversing federal carjacking conviction where government offered no evidence of interstate transport, rejecting argument that it was within the jury’s common knowledge that the particular vehicle model was not manufactured in-state).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sherrod, Antonio
See United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir. 2003) (revers- ing federal carjacking conviction where government offered no evidence of interstate transport, rejecting argument that it was within the jury’s common knowledge that the particular vehicle model was not manufactured in-state). 4 No. 05-1345 The main problem Sherrod faces in making this argument is that he didn’t object to the admission of Kane’s testimony during the trial, so our review is only for plain error.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harris
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Burton, 324 F.3d at 770-71 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Paul Arceneaux
However, where the defendant has not properly moved for acquittal or has failed to renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence, we “review merely to determine whether the conviction amounts to a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Aguilar, 503 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grubin v. Rattet (In Re Food Management Group, LLC)
The attorney for a debtor in possession is not merely a mouthpiece for his client.”) with Hansen, Jones & Leta, P.C. v. Segal, 220 B.R. 434, 467 (D.Utah 1998) (rejecting majority view that counsel has an independent duty to estate and creditors); see also ICM Notes, Ltd. v. Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P, 278 B.R. 117, 126 (S.D.Tex.2002), aff'd 324 F.3d 768 (5th Cir.2003) (while counsel may have a duty to estate and creditors in general, counsel does not have a fiduciary duty to particular creditors); In re Sidco, Inc., 173 B.R. 194 (E.D.Cal.1994) (attorney’s independent duty to estate exists only…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Count Liberty, LLC
See, e.g., ICM Notes, Ltd. v. Andrews & Kurth L.L.P., 278 B.R. 117, 126 (S.D.Tex.2002) (while debtor in possession's counsel may have a duty to estate and creditors in general, there is no fiduciary duty to particular creditors), aff 'd, 324 F.3d 768 (5th Cir.2003); In re Texasoil Enters., 296 B.R. 431, 435 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2003) (opining that "counsel to a debtor in possession may not owe a duty directly to creditors”); Scheftner v. Foster (In re Dieringer), 132 B.R. 34, 37 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1991) (holding that "a debtor’s attorney is not liable to creditors for mishandling a bankruptcy except…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Cenargo International, PLC
The attorney for a debtor in possession is not merely a mouthpiece for his client.”) with Hansen, Jones & Leta, P.C. v. Segal, 220 B.R. 434, 467 (D.Utah 1998) (rejecting majority view that counsel has an independent duty to estate and creditors); see also ICM Notes, Ltd. v. Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P, 278 B.R. 117, 126 (S.D.Tex.2002), aff'd 324 F.3d 768 (5th Cir.2003) (while counsel may have a duty to estate and creditors in general, counsel does not have a fiduciary duty to particular creditors); In re Sidco, Inc., 173 B.R. 194 (E.D.Cal.1994) (attorney’s independent duty to estate exists only…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ICM Notes Ltd
v.
Andrews & Kurth
v.
Andrews & Kurth
02-20628.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 11, 2003.
324 F.3d 768
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
In Re: ICM NOTES LTD., Debtor.
ICM Notes Ltd., Appellant,
v.
Andrews & Kurth, LLP, Appellee.
No. 02-20628.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 11, 2003.
William T. Green, III (argued), Houston, TX, for Appellant.
Murray Jules Fogler (argued), Paul J. Franzetti, McDade Fogler Maines, Houston, TX, for Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; David Hittner, Judge.
Before KING, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL[*], District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
AFFIRMED on the basis of the district court opinion, ICM Notes, Ltd. v. Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P., 278 B.R. 117 (S.D.Tex. 2002).
Notes:
*
District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation