green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Edward Carey v. State of Minnesota
Accord United States v. Ely, 719 F.2d 902, 904-05 (7th Cir.1983), cert. de *442 nied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1313 , 79 L.Ed.2d 710 (1984); United States v. Gipson, 693 F.2d 109, 111 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1216 , 103 S.Ct. 1218 , 75 L.Ed.2d 455 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roy Wilson v. Barry Mintzes
Accord United States v. Ely, 719 F.2d 902, 904 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1313 , 79 L.Ed.2d 710 (1984); United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1070 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 2154 (1984); United States v. Cox, 580 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075 , 99 S.Ct. 851 , 59 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Augustin Alvarez, Oscar Hernandez, Mario C. Simon, Rolando Rios, Ramon Raymond, Eduardo Portal, Victoriano Concepcion, A/K/A \Macho\""
See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356 , 103 S.Ct. 2398 , 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983). 23 In making this assessment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 , 62 S.Ct. 457, 469 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), and accept all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made by the jury, United States v. Gonzalez, 719 F.2d 1516, 1521-22 (11th Cir. 1983) , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1312 , 79 L.Ed.2d 710 (1984). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Stephen Goot
The district court, however, must avoid not exercising “any discretion at all in imposing the sentence.” United States v. Griffin, 827 F.2d 1108, 1118 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 909 , 108 S.Ct. 1085 , 99 L.Ed.2d 243 (1988). “[WJhere the facts appearing in the record point convincingly to the conclusion that the district court has, without any justification, arbitrarily singled out a minor defendant for the imposition of a more severe sentence than that imposed upon the co-defendants, this court will not hesitate to correct the disparity.” United States v. Wiley, 278 F.2d 50…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Weiker
See also, United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8, 11 (2nd Cir.1977), wherein it advised that "reassignment to another judge may be advisable in order to avoid `an exercise in futility [in which] the Court is merely marching up the hill only to march right down again,' United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 452 , 92 S.Ct. 589, 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 [,599] (1972) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)." NOTES [1] Of course, we also consider whether the trial court abused that discretion"for example, [if the trial court] failed to read the presentence report, or listen to what the defendant or his lawyer had to…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MacKenzie
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 83-6103.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 21, 1984.
Published
Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.