green
Positive treatment
29.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at ¶ 6, citing United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Shearer
Id., citing Saxon and United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-601 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tamela Lee
Resentencing on Counts Five and Six Finally, Defendant asserts that if this Court “vacates Counts One through Four, but not Counts Five and Six, the Court should vacate the sentences on Counts Five and Six and remand the case for resentencing.” (Defendant Br. at 59.) See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tamela Lee
Resentencing on Counts Five and Six Finally, Defendant asserts that if this Court “vacates Counts One through Four, but not Counts Five and Six, the Court should vacate the sentences on Counts Five and Six and remand the case for resentencing.” (Defendant Br. at 59.) See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Habbas
Id. at ¶ 6, citing United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-601 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Montgomery
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at ¶ 6, citing United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lazelle Maxwell v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The court may therefore “vacate and remand an entire sentencing *477 package despite the fact that it includes an unchallenged sentence.” United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr.
See, e.g., United States v. Mixon, 115 F.3d 900, 901-03 (11th Cir.1997) (collateral attack); United States v. Harrison, 113 F.3d 135, 137 (8th Cir.1997) (collateral attack); United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170, 1171-73 (4th Cir.1997) (collateral attack); United States v. Behler, 100 F.3d 632, 640 (8th Cir. 1996) (direct appeal); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996) (direct appeal); see also United States v. Jackson, 103 F.3d 561, 569 (7th Cir.1996) (collecting cases involving direct appeals).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sean Murphy
See United States v. Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573, 590-91 (6th Cir.2010); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Roger Faulkenberry
Courts use various terms when describing such related sentences; some describe them as a “sentencing package” or “bundle,” see, e.g., United States v. Binford, 108 F.3d 723, 728 (7th Cir.1997), while others label them “interdependent sentences.” Regardless of terminology, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 “vests courts of appeals with the supervisory power to vacate and remand an entire sentencing package despite the fact that it includes an unchallenged sentence.” United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ayers
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In that case, the court found that “[w]hen considering a multiple-count criminal judgment that produced ‘interdependent’ sentences, we may ‘vacate all sentences even if only one is reversed on appeal.’ ” United States v. Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573, 590-91 (6th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Faulkenberry
(2×)
When considering a multiple-count criminal judgment that produced “interdependent” sentences, we may “vacate all sentences even if only one is reversed on appeal.” United States v. *591 Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hadden
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.4 application n.2; United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that if defendant is sentenced under § 924(c), the two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) is not per- mitted so as to avoid double-counting).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Hough (00-3380) Lamont Needum (00-3381) Anthony Gibbs (00-3417) Chad Gibbs (00-3434) Antwan Woods (00-3592)
United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mixon
United States v. Thomas, 93 F.3d 479, 488 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Bermudez, 82 F.3d 548, 550 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963-64 (10th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferrell v. United States
United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Victor L. Milledge
“This power allows an appellate court, in a case on a direct appeal from multiple count criminal convictions where the several sentences are interdependent, to vacate all sentences even if only one is reversed on appeal.” Clements, 86 F.3d at 601 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nohara v. United States
See United States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Thomas, 93 F.3d 479, 488 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.1996); United States v. Giraldo, 80 F.3d 667, 677 (2nd Cir.1996); United States v. Jackson, 103 F.3d 561 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Sedgwick, 86 F.3d 1153 (unpublished) (4th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 at 601 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8151, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,537, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,765 United States of America v. Rolando Lopez, United States of America v. Josefa Fuentes
See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 93 F.3d 479, 488 (8th Cir.1996) (vacating § 924(c) conviction and remanding for reconsideration of a two level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam) (same). 12 We therefore affirm the sentence on count three and remand count one to the district court, which should consider whether a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) is warranted.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sean Deveaux and Damon Deveaux
Cf. United States v. Tucker, 90 F.3d 1135, 1143 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Farrugia
Tucker, 90 F.3d at 1143 ; United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lopez
See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 93 F.3d 479, 488 (8th Cir.1996) (vacating § 924(c) conviction and remanding for reconsideration of a two level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l)); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Welch
See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1994); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996). 29 With regard to Count 9, charging Lindsey with possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base on August 6, 1992, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 , the government need not have provided evidence of actual possession; proof of constructive possession suffices.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Welch
See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1994); United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Darryl Phillips
But we have done this before, see United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510 (D.C.Cir.1996); cf. United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996) (relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to "vacate and remand an entire sentencing package despite the fact that it includes an unchallenged sentence"), and so remand the case for resentencing. 1 This instruction was correct as a matter of circuit law at the time administered by the district court
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Trent Hawthorne, United States of America v. Andre Monroe Smith
United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Hernandez, 85 F.3d 1023, 1032 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.1996); United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, June 18, 1996 (No. 95-9370).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gevaras
United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Forrest
E.g., United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-601 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.1996); United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir.1996); see also United States v. Sedgwick, 86 F.3d 1153 , 1996 WL 281635 , at *3 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chauncy Adam Tucker (95-1160) Calvin Miller, Jr. (95-1187) and Anthony Darrick McCoy (95-1220)
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 commentary, applic. note 2; United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996) (reversing § 924(c) conviction due to Bailey and remanding for consideration of enhancement of other sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Doggart
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600 (6th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Clements-Jeffrey v. City of Springfield, Ohio
See Doe v. S.E.C., 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
John H. Nix v. Patrick J. O'Malley Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley
See Doe v. SEC, 86 F.3d 589 , Nos. 95-5862, 95-6625, 1996 WL 327558 , at **10-11 (6th Cir.) (Merritt, C.J., dissenting), vacated and withdrawn, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996); see also Smith v. SEC, 129 F.3d 356 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc) (vacating district court injunction without discussing Murdock).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kenneth R. Moore
(2×)
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alston
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that if defendant is charged with and sentenced separately for using and carrying a fire- arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), the two-level enhancement for firearm possession pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) is not permit- ted so as to avoid double counting).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Edward Hanserd, Movant
(2×)
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996) (direct appeal).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Stotts
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that if defendant is charged with and sentenced separately for using and carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), the two- level enhancement for firearm possession pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1) 5 is not permitted so as to avoid double counting).
cited
Cited "see"
Mayes v. United States
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996) (recognizing that interdependence of convictions leads to a single sentencing package).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Oliver
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. United States
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996) (recognizing that interdependence of convictions leads to a single sentencing package).
cited
Cited "see"
Thayer v. United States
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996) (recognizing that interdependence of convictions leads to a single sentencing package).
cited
Cited "see"
Woodhouse v. United States
See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1996) (“We conclude that defendant’s sentences for his [drug conviction and § 924(c) conviction] were interdependent.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Patterson v. Eppinger
See, e.g., United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 601 (6th Cir. 1996); see also State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 , 827–28 (Ohio 2006). 68 (1991) (“a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); Austin v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 298, 300 (6th Cir. 2000) (an alleged violation of state sentencing laws is not cognizable on federal habeas review) (citing Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerald M. Pasquarille v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Crowder
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 233 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); Johnson, 936 F.Supp. at 434-35 ; Thayer, 937 F.Supp. at 665-66 ; Mayes, 937 F.Supp. at 660-61 ; Woodhouse, 934 F.Supp. at 1013 ; Merritt, 930 F.Supp. at 1114 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shaun Thomas
See United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 1996) ("The prohibition against applying the two level enhancement is no longer applicable, because the firearm sentence on Count 4 has been set aside."); see also United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir. 1996) (vacating § 924(c) conviction and remanding for consideration of a two level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir. 1996) (same); United States v. Fennell, 77 -14- F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam) (same).5 We therefore reverse Thomas's § 924(c) convic…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shaun Thomas
See United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir.1996) (“The prohibition against applying the two level enhancement is no longer applicable, because the firearm sentence on Count 4 has been set aside.”); see also United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996) (vacating § 924(c) conviction and remanding for consideration of a two level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)); United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam) (same). 5 We therefore reverse Thomas’s § 924(c) conv…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Tolson
United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 , 110 S.Ct. 238 , 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); see also U.S. v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1996) (upholding resentencing where two-level enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(l) was applied after the 924(c) count was vacated, because the sentences for those convictions were interdependent).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Doe
v.
Securities and Exchange Commission
v.
Securities and Exchange Commission
6625.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Aug 21, 1996.
Published
John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 95-5862/6625.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 21, 1996.
Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; KENNEDY, MARTIN, NELSON, RYAN, BOGGS, NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE and COLE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~599]1
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 14 provides as follows:
2
The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.
3
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court are vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
[*~600]4
It is further ORDERED, that the appellant file a supplemental brief not later than Wednesday, September 18, 1996, and the appellee file a supplemental brief not later than Wednesday, October 16, 1996. Reargument will be scheduled for Wednesday, December 4, 1996.