green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
9.6 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 3 distinct cases ·
“it is well established that prisons have sound reasons for reading the outgoing mail of their inmates”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McFarlin v. State
because of their reasonable concern for 410 prison security and inmates' diminished expectation of privacy, prison officials do not violate the constitution when they read inmates' outgoing letters.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Washington v. Meachum
it is well established that prisons have sound reasons for reading the outgoing mail of their inmates
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Humberto Hinojosa and Carlos Lerma
since the appellant failed to order the parts of the record regarding the swearing of the second petit jury, we cannot review his claim
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Chavez-Avila
See United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1360 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ochoa
See United States v. Bachynsky, 934 2 F.2d 1349 , 1359-60 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (no reversible error when “the aggregate maximum period of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release cannot exceed the statutory maximum explained to the defendant”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 (1991), modified on other grounds, United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 300-01 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see"
Terril A. Kraushaar v. Earl K. Flanigan, Fred Winterroth, Robin Davis, and Tazewell County
See United States v. Colston, 936 F.2d 312, 315 (7th Cir.) (“Generally, juries may reject parts of a witness’s testimony while accepting other parts.”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 112 S.Ct. 403 , 116 L.Ed.2d 352 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary Lanier Watch
See United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1354 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991), overruled by United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296 (5th Cir.1993) (en banc); United States v. Bernal, 861 F.2d 434, 436 (5th Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 493 U.S. 872 , 110 S.Ct. 203 , 107 L.Ed.2d 156 (1989); United States v. Dayton, 604 F.2d 931, 939 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1080 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Windyceslau D. Lorenzo, United States of America v. Roger Elvick, United States of America v. Nathan K. Brown, United States of America v. Ron Knutt, United States of America v. Thomas Porter
See United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 540 (10th Cir.) (currency reporting), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lorenzo
See United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 540 (10th Cir.) (currency reporting), ce rt. denied,. — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charlie W. Scott
See United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1356 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that fines are "clearly components of the 'maximum penalty”' to which Rule 11(c)(1) refers), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Hiram Stanley Sasser, Ii, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
See United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532 , 540 n. 7 (10th Cir.) ("Duplicity refers to the inclusion of various offenses in a single count of an indictment"), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991); Bins v. United States, 331 F.2d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir.) (holding indictment duplicitous because each count charged defendant made multiple false statements in separate documents), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 880 , 85 S.Ct. 149 , 13 L.Ed.2d 87 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Loutos
(2×)
See also United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1360 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wiley
See, e.g., United States v. Whalen, 940 F.2d 1027, 1034-35 (7th Cir.) (holding that, because prison officials are permitted to examine inmate mail to ensure that the mail does not interfere with the orderly running of the prison, contain threats, or facilitate criminal activity, there is no expectation of privacy in mail that inmates are required to leave unsealed), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilson v. Office of Adult Probation
See, e.g., United States v. Colston, 936 F.2d 312, 318 (7th Cir.) (considering plea canvass as whole, court’s failure to specifically inform defendant of right to confront accusers or cross-examine witnesses did not render plea involuntary or unknowing), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 112 S. Ct. 403 , 116 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Reynolds
(2×)
The rule, as interpreted by this court, addresses three "core concerns": "(1) whether the guilty plea was coerced; (2) whether the defendant understands the nature of the charges; and (3) whether the defendant understands the consequences of the plea." United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 510 (5th Cir.1992); see also *490 United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1354 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nos. 94-1285, 94-1290
(2×)
We have previously noted in a criminal case that a violation of double jeopardy "would surely be the type of 'plain error' which could be raised for the first time on appeal." United States v. Gunter, 546 F.2d 861, 865 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 947 , 97 S.Ct. 1583 , 51 L.Ed.2d 794 (1977), and cert. denied, 431 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 2189 , 53 L.Ed.2d 232 (1977); see also United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 540-41 (10th Cir.1991) (considering on appeal a double jeopardy argument raised below but not in the initial brief or at oral argument), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 112 S.Ct. 402…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. 9844 South Titan Court, Unit 9
(2×)
We have previously noted in a criminal case that a violation of double jeopardy “would surely be the type of ‘plain error’ which could be raised for the first time on appeal.” United States v. Gunter, 546 F.2d 861, 865 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 947 , 97 S.Ct. 1583 , 51 L.Ed.2d 794 (1977), and cert. denied, 431 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 2189 , 53 L.Ed.2d 232 (1977); see also United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 540-41 (10th Cir.1991) (considering on appeal a dou ble jeopardy argument raised below but not in the initial brief or at oral argument), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 112 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cedric Mitchell
(2×)
The rule, as interpreted by this court, addresses three “core concerns”: “(1) whether the guilty plea was coerced; (2) whether the defendant understands the nature of the charges; and (3) whether the defendant understands the consequences of the plea.” United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 510 (5th Cir.1992); See also, United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1354 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 951 , 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William H. Wall
United States v. Hord, 6 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir.1993), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1551 , 128 L.Ed.2d 200 (1994); see also United States v. Bonnett, 877 F.2d 1450, 1454 (10th Cir.1989). “‘[M]ultiplieity refers to multiple counts of an indictment which cover the same criminal behavior.’ ” United States v. Fleming, 19 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532 , 540 n. 7 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991)); see also United States v. Meuli, 8 F.3d 1481, 1485 (10th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John J. Hilliard
See also United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 538 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Turenne A. Renaud
See also United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1360 (5th Cir.) (en bane) (per curiam) (failure to mention supervised release held harmless error where total imprisonment plus supervised release to which defendant was sentenced was less than maximum term of imprisonment of which he had been advised), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991); United States v. Barry, 895 F.2d 702, 704-05 (10th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 939 , 110 S.Ct. 3222 , 110 L.Ed.2d 669 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sanford v. State
In distinguishing contempt law from tax law, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: There is nothing so complex about the law of contempt as to set it apart from the rest of the criminal law to which “ignorance * * * is no defense.” Id. at 758 (citing Cheek, 111 S.Ct. at 609 ); see also United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 540 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991) (Cheek applies only to certain criminal tax statutes)'.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dollar Bank Money Market Account No. 1591768456
See, e.g., United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 537 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991) (court rejects contention that for a structuring conviction “it must be established that the defendant had knowledge of the prohibition of structuring transactions in the criminal statutes”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dollar Bank
See, e.g., United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 537 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991) (court rejects contention that for a structuring conviction "it must be established that the defendant had knowledge of the prohibition of structuring transactions in the criminal statutes").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Stefan Martirosian
The rule, as interpreted by this court, addresses three “core concerns”: “(1) whether the guilty plea was coerced; (2) whether the defendant understands the nature of the charges; and (3) whether the defendant understands the consequences of the plea.” United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 510 (5th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1354 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Timothy B. Gibbons
See also United States v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 538-39 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ralph Hernandez
See, e.g., United States v. Juarez-Fierro, 935 F.2d 672, 677 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gyan Parkash Syal
See also United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. (en banc)), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 402 , 116 L.Ed.2d 351 (1991) (court held failure to inform defendant of supervised release was harmless error in case where defendant made no claim that he did not know he faced period of supervised release and where even worst case prospect of additional time in prison resulting from revocation of supervised - release resulted in significantly less time in prison than maximum sentence allowed); United States v. Carey, 884 F.2d 547 (11th Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, 494 U.S. 1067 , 110 S…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Juarez-Fierro
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 91-5954.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 4, 1991.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.