Gould v. United States, 176 L. Ed. 2d 186 (2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Gould v. United States, 176 L. Ed. 2d 186 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Reynaldo Parado Rodriguez v. State (mdctspecapp, 2015-01-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Reynaldo Parado Rodriguez v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 470 (4th Cir.2009) (“As noted above, the elements of a SORNA failure to register offense ... are that the defendant (1) was required to register....”), cer t. denied, 559 U.S. 974 , 130 S.Ct. 1686 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010); see also State v. Abshire, 363 N.C. 322 , 677 S.E.2d 444, 449 (2009) (holding that one essential element of the crime of “failing to notify the appropriate sheriff of a sex offender’s change of address” is that “the defendant is a ‘person required ... to register’ ”).
cited Cited "see" Jacob Scott Turner v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 297 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Tex.Crim.App.2009), cert, denied, 559 U.S. 975 , 130 S.Ct. 1689 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010); State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).
cited Cited "see" Gregory Pollock v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 297 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Tex.Crim.App.2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 975 , 130 S.Ct. 1689 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010); Moff, 154 S.W.3d at 601 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Frank Rogers
4th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir.2009), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1686 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010). “[A] panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Molineux
La. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See [U.S. v.] Gould, 568 F.3d [459] at 468-69 [ (4th Cir.2007), cert. denied, Gould v. U.S., — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1686 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010)]; [U.S. v.] Dixon, 551 F.3d [578] at 584 [(7th Cir.2008), reversed and remanded on other grounds, Carr v. U.S., — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2229 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1152 (2010) ]; United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926, 938 (10th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 129 S.Ct. 2383 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1301 (2009); United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912, 921 (8th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 2431 , 174 L.Ed.2d 229 (2009).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Yelloweagle
10th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 473-74 (4th Cir.2009) (discussing Congressional findings), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1686 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Dean (2×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1686 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 , 2010 WL 680575 (2010); United States v. Cain, 583 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.2009).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Parks
1st Cir. · 2012 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275, 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 642 , 178 L.Ed.2d 486 (2010) (finding that the Interim Rule governs), and United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 470 (4th Cir.2009), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1686 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010) (same), with United States v. Utesch, 596 F.3d 302 , 310 & 311 n. 8 (6th Cir.2010) (finding that the 2008 action governs), and United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1534 , 182 L.Ed.2d 219 (2012) (same). 3 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Nick
10th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
Morsey v. Chevron USA, Inc., 94 F.Bd 1470, 1477 (10th Cir.1996); see also United States v. Montgomery, 620 F.2d 753, 757 (10th Cir.1980) (“Certainly the trial court has discretion to determine whether to reopen a case, and ordinarily a decision to reopen will not be reversed on review without a clear showing of abuse of discretion.”)- A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Doe, 572 F.3d 1162, 1172 (10th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Sells, 541 F.3d 1227, 1237 (10th Cir.2008), cert.…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. James McBroom
5th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 468 (4th Cir.2009), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1686 , 176 L.Ed.2d 186 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brian Lee Gould
v.
United States
No. 09-6742.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 1, 2010.
176 L. Ed. 2d 186
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 568 F.3d 459.