green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michelle Thacker
See United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1175 , 121 S.Ct. 1149 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1011 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James J. Wolf
See United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1175 , 121 S.Ct. 1149 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1011 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Newell v. Rolling Hills Apartments
See United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2000) (courts must follow unpublished precedent of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 1149 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1011 (2001); Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 905 (8th Cir.2000) *1041 (that portion of 8th Cir.R. 28A(i) that states unpublished opinions are not preóe-dent is unconstitutional under Article III), vacated on reh’g en banc on other grounds, 235 F.3d 1054 (2000) (en banc) (noting that, because the panel decision had been vacated as moot, “[t]he constitutionality of that portion …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jose Angel Morales-Castillo
Compare United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that Application Note 6 imposes a mandatory obligation on the district courts), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1175 , 121 S.Ct 1149 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1011 (2001); United States v. Alexander, 100 F.3d 24, 26-27 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1128 , 117 S.Ct. 1273 , 137 L.Ed.2d 350 (1997) (same); United States v. Gondek, 65 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.1995) (same); United States v. Bernard, 48 F.3d 427, 431-32 (9th Cir.1995) (same); with United States v. Swan, 275 F.3d 272, 279-80 (3d Cir.2002) (holding that Application Note 6 is n…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eric L. Swan
Compare United States v. Goldman, 228 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that Applica *278 tion Note 6’s language is mandatory), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1175 , 121 S.Ct. 1149 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1011 (2001), United States v. Alexander, 100 F.3d 24, 26-27 (5th Cir.1996) (same), United States v. Gondek, 65 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.1995) (same), and United States v. Bernard, 48 F.3d 427, 430-32 (9th Cir.1995) (same), with United States v. Tisdale, 248 F.3d 964, 976-80 (10th Cir.2001) (holding that Application Note 6 is not mandatory), and United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 70-73 (2d Cir.1999) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Allen Lee Paris
See United States v. Hart, 212 F.3d 1067, 1070-71 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1114 , 121 S.Ct. 860 , 148 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001); see also United States v. Peterson, 223 F.3d 756 , 759-60 (8th Cir.2000) (finding sufficient evidence of conspiracy to defraud Medicare where employees submit impermissible claims per employer’s instructions), cer t. denied, 531 U.S. 1175 , 121 S.Ct. 1149 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1011 (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alfredo Figueroa
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 00-7758.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 2001.
Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.