green
Positive treatment
7.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wallace
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 946 , 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wallace
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 946 , 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990). 28 The Fifth Amendment mandates that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...." A "substantial deviation of [jury] instructions from an indictment is impermissible because first it requires a defendant to answer a criminal charge that was not brought by a grand jury, ... and second it denies the defendant sufficient notice to prepare and present an adequate defense." Unit…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wesley Anthony McIntosh
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365 (6th Cir.) (specific type of firearm is not an essential element of section 924(c) offense), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 946 , 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Ermas William Thomas v. Al C. Parke
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 369 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 360 (1990). 4 Accordingly, the request for counsel is denied and the district court's order is affirmed.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Alberto Gessa, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990) (evidence of similar drug transactions occurring five months before time frame of conspiracy as charged in indictment admissible under Rule 404(b)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Harry Thomas
(2×)
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 372-73 (6th Cir.) (district court’s belief that defendant “got a break” in receiving a light sentence for a previous conviction did not justify departure in instant case), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ronald David Rogers
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 370 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 360 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Alberto Gessa, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990) (evidence of similar drug transactions occurring five months before timeframe of conspiracy as charged in indictment admissible under Rule 404(b)). 17 Accordingly, this court finds Gessa's challenges to the introduction of evidence relating to the 2,500 kilogram importation scheme are not well taken.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Carlos Calzadilla
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 370 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 360 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James Roosevelt Smoot
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 369-71 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 360 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Stefan A. Moorman
See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 360 (1990) (evidence of prior drug dealing is relevant to show that the defendant intended to distribute cocaine rather than merely use it).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Timothy Moses Johnson
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 946 , 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Patino
See, e.g., United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 369 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 360 , 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990) (conviction affirmed where indictment charged use of a .357 Magnum but proof showed use of shotgun).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kevin Lee Wilson
Thus, in Fitzwater, we clarified that a statement justifying a departure under the guidelines "must provide a specific reason for the imposition of the sentence, identifying clearly 'the aggravating factors and its reasons for connecting them to the permissible grounds for departure.' The findings must be sufficiently specific in order for the appellate court to engage in meaningful review...." Fitzwater, 896 F.2d at 1011 (quoting United States v. DeLuna-Trujillo, 868 F.2d 122, 124 (5th Cir.1989)); see also United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 372 (6th Cir.) (stating that sentencing court m…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David Hill, David W. Norman, Mark H. Ruff, Ferrell D. Clements
See also United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 360 (1990) (where this court affirmed the district court's decision to admit evidence of prior drug dealing to show defendant's intent to distribute rather than merely use).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roderick
v.
Main-Land Development Consultants, Inc.
v.
Main-Land Development Consultants, Inc.
No. 90-5651.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 29, 1990.
Published
Super. Ct. Me., Oxford County. Certiorari denied.