green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
15.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Jimenez-Robles
(2×)
dvising a defendant that he is free to leave and is not in custody is a powerful factor in the mix, and generally will lead to the conclusion that the defendant is not in custody.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Artemio Reyes-Solano
However, “[i]f the statute criminalizes both conduct that would qualify as a crime of violence and conduct that would not, the court may consider the terms of the charging document or plea agreement as well as a transcript in which the defendant confirmed the factual basis for his plea in order to determine whether the prior conviction was for a crime of violence.” United States v. Lopez-Zepeda, 466 F.3d 651, 653 (8th Cir. 2006); see United States v. Vazquez-Garcia, 449 F.3d 870, 873 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1149 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Reyes-Solano
However, “[i]f the statute criminalizes both conduct that would qualify as a crime of violence and conduct that would not, the court may consider the terms of the charging document or plea agreement as well as a transcript in which the defendant confirmed the factual basis for his plea in order to determine whether the prior conviction was for a crime of violence.” United States v. Lopez-Zepeda, 466 F.3d 651, 653 (8th Cir.2006); see United States v. Vas quez-Garcia, 449 F.3d 870, 873 (8th Cir.2006), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1149 , 166 L.Ed.2d 998 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. W. Dexter Harrison
Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A); see United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1358 (11th Cir.2006), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1149 , 166 L.Ed.2d 998 (2007).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Saucier
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1359 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1182 , 127 S. Ct. 1149 , 166 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Solomon
See U.S. v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1149 , 166 L.Ed.2d 998 (2007); United States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738, 749-50 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 433 , 166 L.Ed.2d 307 (2006); United States v. Bourgeois, 423 F.3d 501, 507 (5th Cir.2005), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2020 , 164 L.Ed,2d 786 (2006); Higgs, 353 F.3d at 298 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sampson
See United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1149 (2007); United States v. Allen, 406 F.3d 940, 949 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 826 (2006); United States v. Barnette, 390 F.3d 775, 788-90 (4th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 126 S. Ct. 92 (2005); United States v. Robinson, 367 F.3d 278, 290 (5th Cir. 2004); cf. United States v. Collazo-Aponte, 281 F.3d 320 , 324- 25 (1st Cir. 2002) (rejecting a facial challenge to 21 U.S.C. § 841 because "there is nothing in the statutory language that explicitly defies Apprendi").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gary Lee Sampson
See United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1367 (11th Cir.2006), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1149 , — L.Ed.2d - (2007); United States v. Allen, 406 F.3d 940, 949 (8th Cir.2005), cert, denied, — U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 826 , 166 L.Ed.2d 665 (2006); United States v. Barnette, 390 F.3d 775, 788-90 (4th Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds, - U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 92 , 163 L.Ed.2d 32 (2005); United States v. Robinson, 367 F.3d 278, 290 (5th Cir.2004); cf. United States v. Collazo-Aponte, 281 F.3d 320, 324-25 (1st Cir.2002) (rejecting a facial challenge to 21 U.S.C. § 841 because “there is no…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fields
(2×)
See United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330 , 1361 n. 12 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that the Confrontation Clause applies at capital sentencing because "death is different"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 127 S.Ct. 1149 , ___ L.Ed.2d ____ (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boyle v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Colon, supra, 272 Conn. [106,] at 337-38, 864 A.2d 666 [(2004)] (defendant repeatedly slammed two year old victim’s head into shower wall); see also United States v. Agofsky, 458 F.3d 369, 374-75 (5th Cir.2006) (defendant stomped fellow inmate’s head and neck into concrete floor approximately eleven times), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1182 , 127 S.Ct. 1149 , 166 L.Ed.2d 998 (2007); United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1199-1200 (N.D.Ga.2003) (defendant struck victim in head three times with hammer); McGowan v. State, 990 So.2d 931 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (defendant bludg…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rizzo
(4×)
Courts frequently have concluded that aggravating circumstances similar to Connecticut's cruel, heinous and depraved factor were sufficiently proven in cases in *1146 which a victim was killed by beating or bludgeoning, even when the attack is not especially prolonged and the victim's loss of consciousness and death occur rather quickly. [59] See, e.g., State v. Colon, supra, 272 Conn. at 337-38 , 864 A.2d 666 (defendant repeatedly slammed two year old victim's head into shower wall); see also United States v. Agofsky, 458 F.3d 369, 374-75 (5th Cir.2006) (defendant stomped fellow inmate's head…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Torres v. Roberts
See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1359 (11th Cir .2006), cert. denied, —U .S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1149 , 166 L.Ed.2d 998 (2007) (holding district court *788 did not violate Sixth Amendment by admitting defendant’s out-of-court statement) (citing United States v. Zizzo, 120 F.3d 1338, 1354 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Moran, 759 F.2d 777, 786 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Rios Ruiz, 579 F.2d 670, 676-77 (1st Cir.1978); 4 Jack B.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Concepcion Sablan
See, e.g., Szabo v. Walls, 313 F.3d 392, 399 (7th Cir.2002) (relying on Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) to support its holding that "the Confrontation Clause does not apply to capital sentencing” and noting that while the law governing sentencing in capital cases has changed significantly since Williams , the Supreme Court never questioned or overruled that case); United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 323 (4th Cir.2003) (assuming, on habeas review, “that the admission of ... statements would be a violation of Higgs's rights under the Confrontation …
Shannon Wayne AGOFSKY, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
06-7253.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 22, 2007.
Cited by 41 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (2)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.