Sanchez-Lino v. United States, 178 L. Ed. 2d 338 (2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Sanchez-Lino v. United States, 178 L. Ed. 2d 338 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Margarito Saucedo (ca7, 2012-08-06)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Margarito Saucedo (2×)
7th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Consent to search is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, id. at 346, but the search must remain within the scope of consent, id. at 348.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lipsey
7th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jackson, 598 F.3d 340, 345 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 435 , 178 L.Ed.2d 338 (2010); United States v. Wallace, 531 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir.2008) (“We have never deemed a below-range sentence to be unreasonably high.”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Glover
7th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jackson, 598 F.3d 340, 345 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 131 S.Ct. 435 , 178 L.Ed.2d 338 (2010); United States v. Wallace, 531 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir.2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Herbert Pulliam
4th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir.2010) (providing standard of review); see also United States v. Jackson, 598 F.3d 340, 345 (7th Cir.) (“A below-guidelines sentence, like a within-guidelines one, is presumed reasonable against a defendant’s challenge that it is too high.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 435 , 178 L.Ed.2d 338 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ricardo Antonio Sanchez-Lino
v.
United States
No. 10-6510.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 18, 2010.
178 L. Ed. 2d 338
Published

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 824.