green
Positive treatment
Trending · 102 recent citers
6.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
Dudley Bryant, Jr. v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium
(3×)
See Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 960-64 (8th Cir.2004) (canvassing other circuits’ case law but ultimately concluding that the prisoner in that case had had an “unobstructed procedural opportunity” to obtain review of his claim in his first § 2255 motion), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1147 , 125 S.Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Shugars
See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa.Super.2002) ("When the record demonstrates that the sentencing court was aware of the guideline ranges and contains no indication that incorrect guideline ranges were applied or that the court misapplied the applicable ranges, we will not reverse simply because the specific ranges were not recited at the sentencing hearing.”), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 671 , 868 A.2d 1198 (2005), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Carter, K.
See also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 , 125 S. Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005) (noting that allegation that sentencing court did not consider evidence of good behavior in prison, alleged brain damage, and limited mental capacity does not raise substantial question).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Burton, Z.
See also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 , 125 S. Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005) (noting that allegation that sentencing court did not consider evidence of good behavior in prison, alleged brain damage, and limited mental capacity does not raise a substantial question).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Wills, N.
See also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 , 125 S. Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005) (noting that allegation that sentencing court did not consider evidence of good behavior in prison, alleged brain damage, and limited mental capacity does not raise a substantial question).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Fortson
In exercising its discretion, “[t]he sentencing court must impose a sentence that is appropriate in light of the individualized facts of the underlying incident.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 873 A.2d 704, 709 (Pa. Super. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 671 , 868 A.2d 1198 (2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 , 125 S.Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Moury
Compare Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1107 (Pa.Super.2003) (en banc) (stating substantial question is raised, however, where appellant alleges sentencing court imposed sentence in aggravated range without adequately considering mitigating circumstances). ¶ 16 “When imposing a sentence, a court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super.2002), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 671 , 868 A.2d 1198 (2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 , 125 S.Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chavarry
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 04-10324.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 2005.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.