green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.3 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2005 ·
…e hold today that apprendi is not of watershed magnitude and that teague bars petitioners from raising apprendi claims on collateral review.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Gomes
(4×)
e hold today that apprendi is not of watershed magnitude and that teague bars petitioners from raising apprendi claims on collateral review.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen
(2×)
See Robinson, 367 F.3d at 285-86 ; Higgs, 353 F.3d at 304-06 ; accord United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993 , 1000-01 & n. 8 (8th Cir.2001) (Apprendi indictment error is not structural), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1097 , 122 S.Ct. 848 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rosario-Dominguez v. United States
See Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18, 20-26 (2d Cir.2001) (denial of the right to testify did not constitute ineffective assistance because petitioner failed to show prejudice), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1096 , 122 S.Ct. 847 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002); Brown v. Artuz, 124 F.3d 73, 80-81 (2d Cir.1997) (no prejudice where “the only testimony [petitioner] claims he wanted to present would not have aided his ... defense”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1128 , 118 S.Ct. 1077 , 140 L.Ed.2d 135 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Watkins
(2×)
See United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 1001-03 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 848 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002); Valenzuela v. United States, 261 F.3d 694 , 700 n. 2 (7th Cir.2001) (holding that novelty of Apprendi not cause for failure to raise issue earlier because foundation for Apprendi laid long before 1992); United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 145-46 (4th Cir.) (agreeing with Seventh Circuit that Apprendi claim not novel and therefore not cause for procedural default), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 573 , 151 L.Ed.2d 445 (2001); McCoy v. United States, 266 …
discussed
Cited "see"
Antonio Brown v. United States
(2×)
See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (holding that any fact other than a prior conviction that results in a sentence longer than the statutory maximum, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.) This Court’s decision in United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 848 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002), forecloses Mr. Brown’s arguments.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward G. Harrison
See United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 9095 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 848 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harrison
(2×)
See United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 995 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 848 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur Schuyler Ross
(2×)
See United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 848 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Arthur Schuyler Ross
See United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 848 , (2002).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Andre Swinton
(4×)
In McCoy , the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the rule in Apprendi was not dictated by precedent existing before Apprendi was decided, and that before Apprendi , the courts of appeals had been upholding sentences that were greater than the otherwise applicable maximum sentences based on a drug quantity not charged in the indictment, submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 266 F.3d at 1256; see also United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir.2001) (" Apprendi is obviously a `new rule' subject to the general rule of non-retroactivity."), cert.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Derman v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Patterson, 292 F.3d 615, 623 (9th Cir.2002) (finding no Apprendi error when jury returned a guilty verdict after being instructed on only a threshold quantity). *45 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 848 , 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002); United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 145-46 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 573 , 151 L.Ed.2d 445 (2001); United States v. Smith, 241 F.3d 546, 548-49 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 267 , 151 L.Ed.2d 195 (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Medina-Garcia
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 01-7141.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Hawaii Supreme Court (4)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.