green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.6 score
“we've recognized that corroborating evidence is a valid consideration in determining the trustworthiness of out-of-court' statements for purposes of rule 803(24)”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Kevin Guy Harris
See United States v. Thomas, 961 F.2d 1110, 1120-21 (3rd Cir.1992) (holding that the district court erred by departing upward to compensate for the government’s decision not to charge the defendant with a more serious crime); United States v. Faulkner, 952 F.2d 1066, 1069-71 (9th Cir.1991) (“It would be patently unfair if the court were allowed to hold [the defendant] to his part of the bargain — his plea of guilty to five counts — while simultaneously denying him the benefits promised him from the bargain by relying on the uncharged and dismissed counts in sentencing him.”); United …
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Kevin Harris
See United States v. Thomas, 961 F.2d 1110 , 1120 6 21 (3rd Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court erred by departing upward to compensate for the government's decision not to charge the defendant with a more serious crime); United States v. Faulkner, 952 F.2d 1066, 1069-71 (9th Cir. 1991) ("It would be patently unfair if the court were allowed to hold [the defendant] to his part of the bargain--his plea of guilty to five counts--while simultaneously denying him the benefits promised him from the bargain by relying on the uncharged and dismissed counts in sentencing him."); United States …
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Cirrus Logic Securities Litigation
we've recognized that corroborating evidence is a valid consideration in determining the trustworthiness of out-of-court' statements for purposes of rule 803(24)
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Amilpas-Wences
See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1113 , 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles M. Raimondi, Jr.
See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1113 , 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995); United States v. Doe, 18 F.3d 41, 45-46 (1st Cir.1994). 21 .See discussion supra Part II.B.l, at 16-17; see also § 1B1.4 & commentary; § 5K2.0, p.s.; § 5K2.6, p.s.; United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 , -, 117 S.Ct. 633, 636 , 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 401 , 115 S.Ct. 2199 , 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Francisco Fidel-Martinez, United States of America v. Alejandro Vargas-Hernandez, United States of America v. Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez, United States of America v. Jose Manuel Arciniega, United States of America v. Jesus Rosales-Ceja
See United States v. Valdez-Soto, 31 F.3d 1467, 1476 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1969 (1995). 47 The district court found that Rosales-Ceja foresaw the presence of the guns to effectuate the drug sale based on his testimony at the first two trials.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Reed
See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807-10 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Campbell
See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (standard of review), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Carl Harmon, Jr. v. Richard D. McVicar Warden
See United States v. Valdez-Soto, 31 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 859 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Robinson
See United States v. Ashburn, 20 F.3d 1336 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cox
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(j), Commentary, Application note 6; see United States v. Ash- *340 burn, 20 F.3d 1336, 1343 (5th Cir.), reinstated, in relevant part on reh’g en banc, 38 F.3d 803 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard Bowen v. Otis Thurman, Warden James Gomez, Director, Department of Corrections
See United States v. Gomez-Tello, 31 F.3d 1467, 1470 (9th Cir.1994) ("We are aware of no Supreme Court case, or any other case, which holds that introduction of hearsay evidence can violate the Confrontation Clause where the putative declarant is in court and the defendants are able to cross-examine him."), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1969 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hunnewell
(2×)
See United States v. Par-due, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995); United States v. Tel-man, 28 F.3d 94, 96-97 (10th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Twomey, 845 F.2d 1132, 1134 (1st Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Piper
See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.), cert. ___ _____________ ______ _____ denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1994); United States v. Telman, 28 F.3d ______ _____________ ______ 94, 96-97 (10th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Twomey, 845 ___ ____ _____________ ______ F.2d 1132, 1134 (1st Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. George Labonte, United States of America v. David E. Piper, United States of America v. Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell, Stephen Dyer v. United States
See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995); United States v. Telman, 28 F.3d 94, 96-97 (10th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Twomey, 845 F.2d 1132, 1134 (1st Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Billy Harold Laster
See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1969 (1995). 5 Section 4B1.1 provides the criteria for classification as a career offender under the guidelines and outlines the effect career offender status will have on the overall sentencing.
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FREDDIE BENITO JEREZ
See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEVE RICHARD SHOCKEY
(2×)
See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 809 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VALENTIN JAIMES-OCAMPO
See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Drath
See also United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Peter L. Collins
(2×)
See also United States v. Nnanyererugo, 39 F.3d 1205, 1207 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("[n]o distinction is made on review between direct and circumstantial evidence."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1969 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995); United States v. Teffera, 985 F.2d 1082, 1085 (D.C.Cir.1993) (in evaluating the government's proof, the court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Haburn
v.
Sharp, Magistrate Judge
v.
Sharp, Magistrate Judge
No. 94-8116.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 15, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.