green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.1 score
“a 'mere error of state law' is not a denial of due process”
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
GREENE v. NOGAN
a 'mere error of state law' is not a denial of due process
discussed
Cited "see"
Coker v. Thaler
See Toro v. Fairman, 940 F.2d 1065, 1069 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992) (petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel’s decision to allow him to testify and admit the elements of the offense where the prosecution’s case was “very strong,” the witnesses against him were credible, and petitioner was “hard-pressed” for a defense). 4.
discussed
Cited "see"
Byrd v. State
See Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 697-98 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992) (same); see also United States v. DiDomenico, 78 F.3d 294, 303-04 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1006 , 117 S. Ct.507, 136 L.Ed.2d 398 (1996) (criticizing this agency rationale). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Castillo
(2×)
FED.R.CRIM.P. 51(b) (emphasis added); see United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1090-91 (5th Cir.) (applying Rule 51 in sentencing context), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3039 , 120 L.Ed.2d 908 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Green v. Johnson
See Paters v. United States, 159 F.3d 1043, 1046 (7th Cir.1998) (citing Toro v. Fairman, 940 F.2d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992)).
examined
Cited "see"
Robert J. Paters v. United States
(4×)
See Toro v. Fairman, 940 F.2d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992); see also McCleese v. United States, 75 F.3d 1174, 1179 (7th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Simpson v. State
See United States v. McNeal, 955 F.2d 1067 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3039 , 120 L.Ed.2d 908 (1992)(guest who had no clothes or toothbrush on the premises was no more than a casual, transient visitor); United States v. Garcia, 741 F.2d 363 (11th Cir.l984)(visitor who was not an owner or lessee and who stored no personal belongings on the premises did not have sufficient “significant and current interest” in the premises to establish standing); State v. Conklin, 249 Neb. 727 , 545 N.W.2d 101 (1996)(occasional guest who had no ability to exclude others from the premi…
discussed
Cited "see"
Craig v. Singletary
(2×)
See United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.1991) (“[U]ncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to support a conviction in the Federal Courts if it is not on its face incredible or otherwise insubstantial.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992); United States v. Broadwell, 870 F.2d 594, 601 (11th Cir.) (“Testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient to support a conviction.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 840 , 110 S.Ct. 125 , 107 L.Ed.2d 85 (1989); United S…
discussed
Cited "see"
Craig v. Singletary
(2×)
See United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.1991) ("[U]ncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to support a conviction in the Federal Courts if it is not on its face incredible or otherwise insubstantial.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992); United States v. Broadwell, 870 F.2d 594, 601 (11th Cir.) ("Testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient to support a conviction."), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 840 , 110 S.Ct. 125 , 107 L.Ed.2d 85 (1989); United States v.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Crum v. State
(2×)
See Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cer t. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
General Cigar Co. v. CR Carriers, Inc.
(2×)
See United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas J. Maloney
(4×)
See United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1561 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992) 17 Maloney counters that this evidence could not have been admitted as co-conspirator's statements since the statements were made in 1986 and therefore could not have been in furtherance of the 1981 bribe.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Guido Riascos-Suarez A/K/A Kennedy Diuza-Riascos
Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104-05 , 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); see United States v. McNeal, 955 F.2d 1067, 1073-75 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3039 , 120 L.Ed.2d 908 (1992); United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1510 (6th Cir.1988). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Larry Dobbs
See United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1209-10 (10th Cir.1991) (stating that improper sale of FmHA-mortgaged cattle created "proceeds of an illegal activity”), cert. denied, —U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992); cf. United States v. West, 22 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir.) (holding that transactions underlying bankruptcy fraud produced "proceeds of unlawful activity”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 584 , 130 L.Ed.2d 498 (1994). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Cross-Appellee v. Chris Hager, and Michael Allen Hall, Peter Myer Hubble, Wentworth Matthew Houghton, and John Lampkins
See United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1214 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 3037 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilda M. Thomas Elizabeth W. Thomas
See United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1560 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992); United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156, 1163 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1104 , 105 S.Ct. 2334 , 85 L.Ed.2d 850 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alvin Arbeiter
See United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1209-10 (10th Cir. 1991) (concluding substantial evidence existed to show defendant acted with intent to defraud where he structured sales to avoid having FmHA on check, and he testified he knew FmHA had security interest in cattle and any check from sale of such collateral had to list FmHA on check), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 3037 (1992). 3 The judgment is affirmed. 1 The Honorable Lawrence L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bingham v. State
Appellant's wife was an accomplice and coconspirator; her incriminating statement to the police investigator was inadmissible under the coconspirator rule of evidence since she did not make the statement "during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy." TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 801(e)(2)(E); see *14 also Deeb v. State, 815 S.W.2d 692, 696-97 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pierro
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id. at ___ [slip op. at 16-17]. ___ ___ 12Appellant gives these points only cursory treatment in his appellate brief.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jack Carlton Reed, Donald Kenneth Lady, Barry Kane
Moreover, this circuit explicitly has held that “Grady did not reverse or overrule or in any way weaken the Court’s previous decision in Garrett v. United States.” United States v. Link, 921 F.2d 1523, 1530 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2273 , 114 L.Ed.2d 724 (1991); accord United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1559 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
St Tammany Prsh Sch v. State of Louisiana
See, e.g., United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (“no party has the power to control our standard of review”), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
St. Tammany Parish School Board v. Louisiana
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (“no party has the power to control our standard of review”), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3039 , 120 L.Ed.2d 908 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca2 1998
See, e.g., United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir.) (en banc) ("no party has the power to control our standard of review"), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3039 , 120 L.Ed.2d 908 (1992). 31 Our court has not considered the appropriate standard of review for such IDEA interlocutory orders.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Custodio v. United States
See Keats, 856 F.Supp. at 166 ; see also Toro v. Fairman, 940 F.2d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed.2d 907 (1992); Diaz v. United States, 930 F.2d 832, 835 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Barber, 808 F.Supp. 361 , 378 n. 47 (D.N.J.1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca9 1996
(2×)
See United States v. LeBlanc, 24 F.3d 340, 346 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 250 , 130 L.Ed.2d 172 (1994); United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 680 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---- & ----, 115 S.Ct. 259 & 267, 130 L.Ed.2d 179 & 185 (1994); see also United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1214 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rude
(2×)
See United States v. LeBlanc, 24 F.3d 340, 346 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 250 , 130 L.Ed.2d 172 (1994); United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 680 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. - & -, 115 S.Ct. 259 & 267, 130 L.Ed.2d 179 & 185 (1994); see also United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1214 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Judge v. State
See, e.g., Toro v. Fairman, 940 F. (2d) 1065, 1067 (7th Cir. 1991) (“A criminal defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel in deciding whether to accept or reject a proposed plea agreement.”), cer t. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 , 112 S.Ct. 3038 , 120 L.Ed. (2d) 907 (1992); accord Johnson v. Duckworth, 793 F. (2d) 898 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 937 , 107 S.Ct. 416 , 93 L.Ed. (2d) 367 (1986); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Starrett
This Court has held that the government may prove a defendant’s agreement in two ways: “(1) by showing an agreement on an overall objective, or (2) ... by showing that a defendant agreed personally to commit two predicate acts and therefore to participate in a ‘single objective’ conspiracy.” Church, 955 F.2d at 694 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca11 1995
"A RICO conspiracy differs from an ordinary conspiracy in two respects: it need not embrace an overt act, and it is broader and may encompass a greater variety of conduct." United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 659 (11th Cir.1984) (footnotes omitted). 90 This Court has held that the government may prove a defendant's agreement in two ways: "(1) by showing an agreement on an overall objective, or (2) ... by showing that a defendant agreed personally to commit two predicate acts and therefore to participate in a 'single objective' conspiracy." Church, 955 F.2d at 694 (citations and quotation mark…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Von Dale Massey, Sr., United States of America v. Sandra Wilkins, United States of America v. Jack Z. Wilkins
See also United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1213 (10th Cir.1991) (noting that the Senate report on a similar money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956 , “makes plain” that the statute was designed to criminalize “the post-crime hiding of illgotten gains”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pierro
See, e.g., Johnson, 971 F.2d at 569 (stating that Congress designed the money laundering statute to fill a lacuna “with respect to the post-crime hiding of ill-gotten gains”); see also United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1214 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that principles of double jeopardy do not bar prosecution and punishment for both money laundering and conversion based on the same overall conduct), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Greathouse v. State
See also United States v. LeQuire , 943 F.2d 1554 , 1566-67 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992); Buchannon , 554 So.2d at 481 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pamela Sue Hollis, United States of America v. William T. \Tom\" Hollis"
See also United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir.1991) (convictions for both § 1956 and predicate offense did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Emma Gonzalez-Rodriguez
Id.; see also United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1211 (10th Cir.1991) (“These involved transactions, unlike the simple automobile purchases in Sanders , certainly support a finding under the money laundering statute of intent to conceal the origin and nature of the proceeds of unlawful activity”), ce rt. denied, - U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 3037 , 120 L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).
LeQuire
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 91-1956.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 29, 1992.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.