Myrick v. New York City Employees' Ret. Sys., 540 U.S. 912 (2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Myrick v. New York City Employees' Ret. Sys., 540 U.S. 912 (2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Melody A. McCully (ca8, 2005-05-13)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Melody A. McCully (2×)
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Smotherman, 326 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 912 , 124 S.Ct. 293 , 157 L.Ed.2d 203 (2003); United States v. Garrido, 38 F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Mihm, 13 F.3d 1200, 1205 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 97, 100 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. A. Lavariega-Diego (2×)
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Smotherman, 326 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 293 , 157 L.Ed.2d 203 (2003) (sentence at top of correct range does not create constitutional infirmity allowing appellate review).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Mark E. Robinson (2×)
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Smotherman, 326 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (holding appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review sentencing court’s exercise of discretion in setting sentence within Guidelines range), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 293 , 157 L.Ed.2d 203 (2003); United States v. Woodrwm, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (holding sentence is not reviewable merely because it is at top end of properly calculated Guidelines range).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Kilpatrick (2×)
D. Neb. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Smotherman, 326 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.) (“Absent any constitutional infirmity, we have no jurisdiction to review the district court’s exercise of discretion in setting a defendant’s sentence within a properly determined guidelines range.”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 912 , 124 S.Ct. 293 , 157 L.Ed.2d 203 (2003); United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that the defendant’s sentence, which was imposed within the applicable Guideline range and which was not imposed in violation of law, or as a result of an incorrect application of the…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Myrick
v.
New York City Employees' Retirement System
03-5495.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 2003.
540 U.S. 912
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

540 U.S. 912

MYRICK
v.
NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

No. 03-5495.

Supreme Court of United States.

October 6, 2003.

1

Appeal from the C. A. 2d Cir.

2

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 56 Fed. Appx. 70.