green
Positive treatment
Trending · 135 recent citers
11.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harris
Cf. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-65, 767 ) (noting after Booker, sentencing courts should determine the sentencing range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under § 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum).
cited
Cited "see"
Equity v. Md. Higher Educ. Comm'n
See Hammoud v. US , 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Caro
See United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426, 426 (4th Cir.2004) (advising courts, to announce an alternative sentence, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), treating the guidelines as advisory only), judgment vacated and remanded, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Erasto Gomez-Jimenez
See United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004), vacated 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005); see also Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d at 374 & n.4 (Shedd, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mehanna
To .the contrary, "the prosecutor’s choice [not to accept a defendant's stipulation] will generally survive a Rule 403 analysis when a defendant seeks to force the substitution of an admission for evidence creating a coherent narrative of his thoughts and actions in perpetrating the offense for which he is being tried.’’ United States v. Balsam, 203 F.3d 72, 84 (1st Cir.2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 192 , 117 S.Ct. 644 ); see United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 , 342 n. 12 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc) (explaining that where proffered stipulation "would not…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chandia
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316, 356 (4th Cir.2004) (affirming application of terrorism enhancement where defendant had “close connections with Hiz *341 ballah officials,” and his testimony indicated that he was “well aware of Hizballah’s terrorist activities and goals and that he personally supported this aspect of Hizballah”), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shukri Baker
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 , 342 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammond v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chandia
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 356 (4th Cir.2004)(upholding district court’s application of § 3A1.4 terrorism enhancement where defendant had “close connections with Hizballah officials” and his own testimony indicated that he was “well aware of Hizballah’s terrorist activities and goals and that he personally supported this aspect of Hizballah” (emphases added)), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005); United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 313 (4th Cir.2008) (holding that enhancement was proper because defendant “attend…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alvarado Perez
(2×)
See United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc order holding that the sentencing guidelines are mandatory but recommending that district courts impose alternate sentences treating the guidelines as advisory pending Supreme Court guidance), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005) (for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dickel
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 , 354-55 (4th Cir.2004), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benkahla
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 341 (4th Cir.2004) (“The mere fact that the evidence will damage the defendant’s case is not enough — the evidence must be unfairly prejudicial, and the unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” (quotation omitted, emphasis in original)), vacated on unrelated grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Campa
(2×)
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 , 333 n. 6 (en banc) (4th Cir.2004), vacated and remanded, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 , opinion reinstated in part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bouygues Telecom, S.A. v. Tekelec
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 337 (4th Cir.2004), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), opinion reinstated in relevant part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that where work was subjected to peer review, terrorism expert could rely on comparison of information against relevant experience, due to absence of a formal methodology).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brandon
See Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chapman
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 341 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc) (“The mere fact that the evidence will damage the defendant’s case is not enough — the evidence must be unfairly prejudicial, and the unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), vacated on other grounds, Hammoud v. U.S., 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Singleton
See Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Edmund Williams, A/K/A Abdullah Shabazz, A/K/A Taharqa Abdullah Shabazz
See Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brock
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 , 353 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), judgment vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Assi
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316, 328-29 (4th Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), reinstated in relevant part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shabazz
See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 750-51 ; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hammoud
See Hammoud v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hammoud
See Hammoud v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). 5 Because the order of the Supreme Court does not affect our resolution of Hammoud's challenges to his convictions and the calculation of his guideline range, we reinstate those portions of our prior opinion.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bernard B. Williams
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir.2004), judgment vacated, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Elshinawy
See, e.g., United States v. Hammond, 381 F. 3d 316 , 327 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), reinstated in part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Fawzi Assi
LAW AND ANALYSIS The Terrorism Enhancement, § 3A1.4, only applies to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B where the evidence shows that the defendant provided support to a foreign terrorist organization with the intent “to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(A); see also United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 , 356 (4th Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds by 543 *573 U.S. 1097, 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), relevant portions reinstated by 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005) (“[A]…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mubayyid
Generally In examining the adequacy of the FISA applications, certifications, and orders at issue, the Court reviewed the materials “de novo with no deference accorded to the FISC’s probable cause determinations, but with a presumption of validity accorded to the certifications.” United States v. Rosen, 447 F.Supp.2d 538, 545 (E.D.Va.2006); see also United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 332 (4th Cir.2004) (conducting de novo review of FISA materials), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Shah
See Sattar I, 272 F.Supp.2d at 361-62 (holding that § 2339B is not overbroad: " § 2339B's prohibitions are content-neutral and its purpose of deterring and punishing the provision of material support or resources to foreign terrorist organizations — a purpose aimed not at speech but at conduct is, of course, legitimate.”); see also United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 330 (4th Cir.2004) (noting that "it may be true that the material support prohibition of § 2339B encompasses some forms of expression that are entitled to First Amendment protection' but stating that [the defendant] has…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Micklin
v.
United States
v.
United States
04-145.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 24, 2005.
Published
MICKLIN
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 04-145.
Supreme Court of United States.
January 24, 2005.
1
C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 89 Fed. Appx. 977;
2
Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, ante, p. 220.