green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ochoa-Heredia
See United States v. Campbell, 61 F.3d 976, 982-83 (1st Cir.1995) (noting that “[t]he commentary excludes only materials that are unusable or unmarketable, such as those used to transport the controlled substance, ... or waste products of the drug manufacturing process that are discarded before the controlled substance is put into the distribution chain,” and therefore including non-P2P materials that did not need to be separated from the P2P before use in the determination of weight of P2P for Guidelines sentencing purposes) (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1161 , 116 …
cited
Cited "see"
Mobley v. United States
See U.S. v. Maybeck, 76 F.3d 376 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1555 , 134 L.Ed.2d 657 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Raymond Elmore
See United States v. Camilo, 71 F.3d 984, 987 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1555 , 134 L.Ed.2d 657 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Voccola
See United States v. Joyce, 70 F.3d 679, 682 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1556 , 134 L.Ed.2d 657 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cali
See United States v. Campbell, 61 F.3d 976, 984 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1556 , 134 L.Ed.2d 657 (1996); Rostoff, 53 F.3d at 404 ; United States v. Jackson, 30 F.3d 199, 202 (1st Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Miranda Santiago
In the context of drug trafficking offenses, where sentences are driven largely by the amount of drugs for which a defendant is held accountable, “the base offense level of a co-conspirator ... should reflect only the quantity of drugs he reasonably foresees is the object of the conspiracy to distribute after he joins the conspiracy.” United States v. O’Campo, 973 F.2d 1015, 1026 (1st Cir.1992); see also United States v. Campbell, 61 F.3d 976, 982 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1556 , 134 L.Ed.2d 657 (1996); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (drug quantity table).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Andrade
As we have held, the Sentencing Commission’s findings with regard to the sentence disparity between crack and powder cocaine are “not a ground for departure under § 5K2.0.” Id. at 11; see also United States v. Camilo, 71 F.3d 984, 990 (1st Cir.1995) (noting congressional rejection of Guidelines amendments that would have eliminated disparity), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1555 , *15 134 L.Ed.2d 657 (1996). 4 The district court thus had no discretion to depart downward based on the sentencing distinction between crack and powder cocaine.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miller
v.
Oregon State Prison
v.
Oregon State Prison
No. 95-8313.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 22, 1996.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.