green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
13.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…in the same vein, the doctrine of speciality does not control the evidentiary procedural rules of american courts.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Lomeli
in the same vein, the doctrine of speciality does not control the evidentiary procedural rules of american courts.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Dino Lomeli
in the same vein, the doctrine of speciality does not control the evidentiary procedural rules of american courts.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Carrington
Even though the Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case, it did so “for further consideration in light of Apprendi.” Carrington, 531 U.S. at 1062, 121 S.Ct. 750 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sergio Neftali Mejia-Duarte
See Garcia v. United States, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S. Ct. 750 (2001) (mem.) (remanding to this Court for reconsideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), which addresses when judicial factfinding ancillary to sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marissa Giselle Massey
See United States v. Garcia, 208 F.3d 1258 , 1262 (11th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds by Garcia v. United States, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 750 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), reinstated by United States v. Garcia, No. 97-3222, slip. op. at 2, 251 F.3d 160 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2001) (per curiam); see also United States v. Rowlett, 23 F.3d 300, 306 (10th Cir.1994) (noting that there must be an “actual hindrance” to an official investigation or prosecution when the conduct occurred contemporaneously with arrest), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Goff, 314 F.3d 1248, …
discussed
Cited "see"
Sampson v. Conway
In Clark v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that the need for privacy and secrecy during the jury deliberation process derives from the risk that the “[fjreedom of debate might be stifled and independence of thought checked if jurors were made to feel that their arguments and ballots were to be freely published to the world.” 289 U.S. 1,13 , 53 S.Ct. 465 , 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933) (Cardozo, J.); accord, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 619 (2d Cir.1997), vacated on other *180 grounds, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 749 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001); U.S. Const, amend.
discussed
Cited "see"
William T. Coleman v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Thomas, 204 F.3d 381, 383 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam) ( Thomas I ) (collecting cases), vacated and remanded in light of Apprendi, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 749 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hollis
See Thomas v. United States, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 749 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (granting petition of certiorari and remanding to Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Apprendi); United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655, 660 (2d Cir.2001) (reviewing Apprendi issues for plain error on remand from the Supreme Court where Apprendi was decided while defendant’s case was pending appeal). 6 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rivera
See United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.2001) (in banc) (on remand from the Supreme Court, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 749 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jorge Guevara, AKA \Santa
You need only find *116 that the co-conspirators agreed to distribute, or possess with intent to distribute, any quantity of narcotics.” Charge to Jury, Trial Transcript at 291 (emphasis added); see United States v. Thomas, 204 F.3d 381, 383-84 (2d Cir.), vacated and remanded for reconsideration, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 749 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rivera
See United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.2001) (in banc) (on remand from the Supreme Court, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 749 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lopesierra-Gutierrez
See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 208 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 750 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001); Leighnor v. Turner, 884 F.2d 385, 390 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McGarity
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 208 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds by Garcia v. United States, 531 U.S. 1062 , 121 S.Ct. 750 , 148 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), reinstated by United States v. Garcia, 251 F.3d 160 (11th Cir.2001). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zapata v. United States
Indeed, as we noted in our earlier decision, see Galviz Zapata, 431 F.3d at 398 , the issue raised in Jones and Williams had been settled in this circuit at the time of Scolari’s consultation with Zapata, see United States v. Monk, 15 F.3d 25, 27 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.1990); see also United States v. Thomas, 204 F.3d 381, 383 (2d Cir.2000) (noting in a post-Jones, pre-Apprendi decision that “[i]t has been the settled law of this and other Circuits that in crimes charged under 21 U.S.C. § 841 , the quantity of the drug involved is not an eleme…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jones
v.
Bush
v.
Bush
No. 00-953.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 5, 2001.
Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (2)
C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari on 8V2- by 11-inch page proofs granted. Certiorari denied.