green
Positive treatment
Hot · 103 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 10×
191.5 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…he district court erred by imposing a general sentence. we therefore vacate the sentence and remand the case for clarification of the sentence, including the term of supervised release, applicable to each count to which pled.
at p. 1025
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Daniel Solano
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a guilty plea involves the waiver of a number of a defendant's constitutional rights and must therefore be made knowingly and voluntarily to satisfy the requirements of due process.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Eric Lee Brown
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
when neither the supreme court nor this court has resolved an issue, and other circuits are split on it, there can be no plain error in regard to that issue.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mark A. Carlyle v. United States
to establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. De Andre Smith
in general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the eighth amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Wesley William Brandt, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
in general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the eighth amendment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lawrence Ward
he district court erred by imposing a general sentence. we therefore vacate the sentence and remand the case for clarification of the sentence, including the term of supervised release, applicable to each count to which pled.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lawrence Ward
he district court erred by imposing a general sentence. we therefore vacate the sentence and remand the case for clarification of the sentence, including the term of supervised release, applicable to each count to which pled.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Ward
he district court erred by imposing a general sentence. we therefore vacate the sentence and remand the case for clarification of the sentence, including the term of supervised release, applicable to each count to which pled.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Brown
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
wjhen a defendant fails to object to a rule 11 violation, we review only for plain error.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. John Onimole
although a guilty plea can constitute significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility, it may be outweighed by conduct of the defendant inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alexander Sierra La Torres
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jeffery Lewis
After all, “[a] guilty plea involves the waiver of a number of a defendant’s constitutional rights, and must therefore be made knowingly and voluntarily to satisfy the requirements of due process.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (first citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970); then citing Galbraith v. United States, 313 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2002)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hector Caballero
This Court explained that “the conduct proscribed by the [MDLEA] need not have a nexus to the United States because universal and protective principles 4 “To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 829 (11th Cir. 2024) (citing United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Orel Fernandez
The defendant bears the burden of showing that the error seriously affected “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” and impaired “substantial rights.” Id. at 1019 (quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Phillip Howard
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Salas Encarnacion
“To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Id. at 829 (citing United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Brown v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
“The Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, contains a narrow proportionality principle that applies to noncapital sentences.” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20 (2003). “[F]ederal courts should be reluctant to review legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment, and [] successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences should be exceedingly rare.” Id. at 22 . “[A] reviewing court must make a threshold determination that the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed and, if it is grossly disproportionate, the cou…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marcus D. Flintroy
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1018-19 (11th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2006) (reviewing a Confrontation Clause claim first raised on appeal for plain error).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rai Martinez
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Elias Xavier Rosario Torres
USCA11 Case: 24-11929 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 16 of 17 16 Opinion of the Court 24-11929 (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Daniel Quintero
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Crystal Orr
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005); Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Simpkins
A district court accepting a guilty plea must “ensur[e] that [the] defendant (1) enters his guilty plea free from coercion, (2) un- derstands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the we explain, Simpkins voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence for any reason other than that it “exceed[ed] the guideline range[,] . . . exceed[ed] the statutory maximum penalty, or . . . violate[d] the Eighth Amendment.” USCA11 Case: 23-10695 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 07/03/2025 Page: 7 of 9 23-10695 Opinion of the Court 7 consequences of his plea.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nathaniel Harris
USCA11 Case: 21-12791 Document: 120-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2025 Page: 27 of 28 21-12791 Opinion of the Court 27 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lyedrekus Onetaye Bailey
In accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, the district court must specifically address the three “core principles” of Rule 11 by “en- suring that a defendant: (1) enters his guilty plea free from coer- cion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the consequences of his plea.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eric Windham
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph v. United States
To determine whether a guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, a court must specifically “address . . . three ‘core principles,’ ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his guilty plea free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the consequences of his plea.” United States v. Lambert, 777 F. App’x 336 , 339 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael King
See United States v. Allen, 302 F.3d 1260, 1269-76 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jose Miguel Rosario-Rojas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
USCA11 Case: 22-10576 Document: 65-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 28 of 30 28 Opinion of the Court 22-10576 § 70502(d)(1)(C) below, so we review only for plain error.18 “To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jhonathan Alfonso
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
USCA11 Case: 22-10576 Document: 65-1 Date Filed: 06/14/2024 Page: 28 of 30 28 Opinion of the Court 22-10576 § 70502(d)(1)(C) below, so we review only for plain error.18 “To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Scott Goldstein
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wells v. United States
To determine whether a guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, a court must specifically “address . . . three ‘core principles,’ ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his guilty plea free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the consequences of his plea.” United States v. Lambert, 777 F. App’x 336 , 339 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tahji Alonzo Orr
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Julius Arline
And to the extent he argues that his sentence violated the proportionality principle, we’ve held that, “[i]n general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Daniel Ira Johnson
(2×)
“A general sentence is an undi- vided sentence for more than one count that does not exceed the maximum possible aggregate sentence for all the counts but does exceed the maximum allowable sentence on one of the counts.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir. 2005) (inter- nal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jack Protzman
“Generally, sentences within the statu- tory limits are ‘neither excessive, nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.’” United States v. Bowers, 811 F.3d 412, 432 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Peter Sotis
Even then, we may exercise discretion to correct a forfeited error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public rep- utation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (alterations accepted) (quo- tations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Armando Valdes
To comply with the third core concern, “Rule 11(b)(1) provides a list of rights and other relevant matters about which the USCA11 Case: 22-12837 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 11 of 14 22-12837 Opinion of the Court 11 court is required to inform the defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea, including . . . the possibility of forfeiture.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Woods v. United States
“To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Samuel Lee Lynch
To establish plain error, a defendant must show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Rodriguez, 751 F.3d at 1251–52 (quoting United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Underwood v. United States
“To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tory Lenard Troup
See United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Danny Wayne Holmes
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gunn v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The Eleventh Circuit has further explained that, for a guilty plea to be knowingly and voluntarily made, the court accepting the guilty plea must “specifically address three ‘core principles,’ ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his guilty plea free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the consequences of his plea.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jason M. Moriarty
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Emanuel Beach
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rakeem Moore
(2×)
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1018 (11th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Medard
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183 (2005); United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Denson v. United States
The Eleventh Circuit has further explained that, for a guilty plea to be knowingly and voluntarily made, the court accepting the guilty plea must “specifically address three ‘core principles,’ ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his guilty plea free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the consequences of his plea.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
“The Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, contains a ‘narrow proportionality principle’ that ‘applies to noncapital sentences.’” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20 (2003) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 996-97 (1991)). “‘[F]ederal courts should be reluctant to review legislatively mandated terms of imprisonment, and [] successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences should be exceedingly rare.’” Id. at 22 (quoting Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 374 (1982)). “[A] reviewing court must make a threshold determinatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TANNER ADVERTISING GROUP, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FAYETTE COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee
v.
FAYETTE COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee
04-13210.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Nov 1, 2005.
Edward Adam Webb, Webb & Porter, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Dennis A. Davenport, McNally Fox & Grant, Fayetteville, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Edmondson, Tjoflat, Anderson, Birch, Dubina, Black, Carnes, Barkett, Hull, Marcus, Wilson, Pryor.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)
BY THE COURT:
A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.