green
Positive treatment
12.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shepard
See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 134-35 (2d Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Salemo
(2×)
See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 134-35 (2d Cir.2010), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Davis
Interstate Commerce In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the interstate commerce element of their Hobbs Act convictions, defendants assume a heavy burden, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 134-35 (2d Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011), which is made all the more so by the well-established principle that even a “potential or subtle effect” on interstate commerce will satisfy this element, United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Canales
See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 134-35 (2d Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Karlov
See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 63 0 F.3d 102 , 134-35 (2d Cir.2010), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ohle
See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 134-35 (2d Cir.2010), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rivera
See United States v. Farmer, 627 F.3d 416, 418 (9th Cir.2010) (explaining Taylor's methodology), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Amnesty International USA v. Clapper
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 107-31 (2d Cir.2010), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 3062 , 180 L.Ed.2d 892 (2011); see also 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (c) (requiring government to notify interceptee of intent to disclose or use information derived from electronic surveillance); id. § 1806(e) (permitting interceptee to move to suppress information derived from electronic surveillance as unlawfully acquired); id. § 1881e(a) (subjecting information derived from FAA surveillance to provisions of § 1806).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arsenio Arzola
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 10-9299.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 2011.
180 L. Ed. 2d 892
Published
Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 309.