green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
See United States v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139, 141 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 969 , 112 S.Ct. 443 , 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Blake Draper
See United States v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139, 140 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 443 , 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Clark v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
See --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 443 , 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cleveland
See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, 499 F.2d 872, 880-81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1056 , 95 S.Ct. 638 , 42 L.Ed.2d 653 (1974) (finding that when materials submitted to court are more than adequate to show a good faith effort to achieve minimization, an evidentiary hearing need not be held unless the defendant can demonstrate that “a substantial number of nonpertinent conversations had been intercepted unreasonably”); United States v. Losing, 539 F.2d 1174 , 1180 n. 8 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 969 , 98 S.Ct. 516 , 54 L.Ed.2d 457 (1977) (recognizing that district court…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Braum
Id.; see also U.S. v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139, 140 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 443 , 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Arana
See, e.g., United States v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 443 , 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991); United States v. Havener, 905 F.2d 3 (1st Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rios-Paz
Guerreo, 863 F.2d at 250 (amendments “are intended solely to enhance understanding and clarity”); Deigert, 916 F.2d at 917 (“purposes of this amendment are to correct a clerical error and to clarify the operation of the guidelines”); Restrepo, 903 F.2d at 656 (amendments “clarify the intent underlying § 1B1.3 as originally promulgated”); see also United States v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139, 140 (9th Cir.1991) (noting that clarifying amendment states that it is “to clarify” the operation of the guideline), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 443 , 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Luis Colon
Compare United States v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139, 140-41 (9th Cir.) (holding amendment 266 not retroactive), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 443 , 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991) with United States v. Park, 951 F.2d 634, 636 (5th Cir.1992) (holding amendment 379 retroactive).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paredes-Moya
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 91-5560.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 18, 1991.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.