green
Positive treatment
7.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Barraza
In United States v. Dotson, 49 F.3d 227 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 848 , 116 S.Ct. 141 , 133 L.Ed.2d 87 (1995), the Sixth Circuit restated the test which must be applied to determine whether a warrant-less arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believ…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paredes-Lima
In Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964), the Supreme Court held that a warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place does not violate the Fourth Amendment if, at the time of the defendant’s arrest, the police had probable cause to believe that he has committed, is or will be committing an offense. 26 In United States v. Dotson, 49 F.3d 227 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 848 , 116 S.Ct. 141 , 133 L.Ed.2d 87 (1995), the Sixth Circuit restated the test which must be applied to determine whether a warrant-less arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Dale Bailey
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 628 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1043 , 114 S.Ct. 1570 , 128 L.Ed.2d 214 and 511 U.S. 1044 , 114 S.Ct. 1571 , 128 L.Ed.2d 215 (1994) (seeing gun handle under driver’s seat provided probable cause for police officers to arrest defendant on charges of carrying a concealed weapon).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hogan v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
In Dotson , the Sixth Circuit explained the test to be applied to determine whether a arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ridley
In Dotson , the Sixth Circuit explained the test to be applied to determine whether a warrantless arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of *715 which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct.…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bush
In Dotson , the Sixth Circuit explained the test to be applied to determine whether a warrantless arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223 …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eric Taylor A/K/A \Shug\""
(2×)
Where these conditions are met, the court will find plain error if the error “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. at 736 , 113 S.Ct. at 1779 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391, 392 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)); see United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 629-30 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1570 , 128 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mukhtar A. Malik
Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G."), the district court "[cannot] hold a defendant responsible for a specific quantity of drugs unless the court can conclude the defendant is more likely than not actually responsible for a quantity greater than or equal to the quantity for which the defendant is being held responsible." United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1302 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 990 (1990); accord United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 631 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1570 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Willie Causey, Jr.
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1570 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Troy Anthony Ward
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 631 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1570 (1994) (sentencing based on the district court's factual determination of the quantity of cocaine involved in the crime). 28 The district court determined Ward's offense level pursuant to Guidelines § 2K2.1, the provision applicable to 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Clodoveo Hughes
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 629 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1570 , and cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1571 (1994); United States v. Seago, 930 F.2d 482, 493 (6th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernon WATTS, Defendant-Appellant
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 631 (6th Cir.1993) (upholding district court’s determination that offense involved more than fifty grams of crack because, although the weight of the crack dropped below fifty grams by the time of trial, expert testified that weight loss was attributable to evaporation and the use of small amounts of crack for testing), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1570 , 128 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leonard Bruce Hudgins
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 628 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1570 , 128 L.Ed.2d 214 and — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1571 , 128 L.Ed.2d 215 (1994); United States v. Patterson, 993 F.2d 121, 122-23 (6th Cir.1993) (per curiam); White, 871 F.2d at 44 ; United States v. Hatfield, 815 F.2d 1068, 1071-72 (6th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gerald Dotson
The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it—whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223, 225 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); see United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 627 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —,…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David W. Lanier
(2×)
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 629 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1570 , 128 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronnie Hudson
See also United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 630 (6th Cir.1993) (if court finds plain error affecting substantial rights, it "must then consider whether to exercise [its] discretionary power under Rule 52(b)...."), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1570 (1994). 24 Ordinarily, the omission of an essential element of an offense from the jury instruction compromises the fairness and integrity of a criminal trial.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hicklin
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 93-8245.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 18, 1994.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.