green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.4 score
“e hold today that apprendi is not of watershed magnitude and that teague bars petitioners from raising apprendi claims on collateral review.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Gomes
(2×)
e hold today that apprendi is not of watershed magnitude and that teague bars petitioners from raising apprendi claims on collateral review.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen
See Robinson, 367 F.3d at 285-86 ; Higgs, 353 F.3d at 304-06 ; accord United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993 , 1000-01 & n. 8 (8th Cir.2001) (Apprendi indictment error is not structural), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1097 , 122 S.Ct. 848 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen
See Robinson, 367 F.3d at 285-86 ; Higgs, 353 F.3d at 304-06 ; accord United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993 , 1000-01 & n.8 (8th Cir. 2001) (Apprendi indictment error is not structural), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1097 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Thomas Franklin
See United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 988 , 125 S.Ct. 513 , 160 L.Ed.2d 373 (2004); see also, United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457, 460 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1097 , 122 S.Ct. 849 , 151 L.Ed.2d 726 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Swinton
In McCoy, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the rule in Apprendi was not dictated by precedent existing before Apprendi was decided, and that before Apprendi, the courts of appeals had been upholding sentences that were greater than the otherwise applicable maximum sentences based on a drug quantity not charged in the indictment, submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 266 F.3d at 1256; see also United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Apprendi is obviously a ‘new rule’ subject to the general rule of non-retroactivity.”),…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Andre Swinton
(2×)
In McCoy , the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the rule in Apprendi was not dictated by precedent existing before Apprendi was decided, and that before Apprendi , the courts of appeals had been upholding sentences that were greater than the otherwise applicable maximum sentences based on a drug quantity not charged in the indictment, submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 266 F.3d at 1256; see also United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir.2001) (" Apprendi is obviously a `new rule' subject to the general rule of non-retroactivity."), cert.…
Alfaro-Rojas
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 01-7138.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Hawaii Supreme Court (2)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.