green
Positive treatment
7.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harder
See United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 925 (11th Cir.) (in case of first impression, noting that whether an entity constitutes an “instrumentality” is a “fact-bound question[ ]” and providing relevant factors to the jury’s inquiry), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 293 , 190 L.Ed.2d 141 (2014); United States v. Duperval, 777 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir.2015) (“fact-finder should consider the factors” enumerated in Esquenazi to determine whether entity constitutes instrumentality), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 859 , 193 L.Ed.2d 757 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Peter, Jr.
See United States v. Del Valle–Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171, 177 (1st Cir.) (stressing too that "[t]he fact that we, from a lofty appellate perch, might think some lesser sentence appropriate is not, in itself, a sufficient reason to disturb the district court's exercise of its discretion"), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 293 (2014). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Peter
See United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171, 177 (1st Cir.) (stressing too that “[t]he fact that we, from a lofty appellate perch, might think some lesser sentence appropriate is not, in itself, a sufficient reason to disturb the district court’s exercise of its discretion”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 293 , 190 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014). 2.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Cruz-Fernandez
See United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171, 177 (1st Cir.) (stressing that “there is no perfect sentence”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 293 , 190 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Santiago-Serrano
See United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171, 177 (1st Cir.) (adding too that “there is no perfect sentence”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 293 , 190 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel Rodriguez
See United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912 , 929 n. 11 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 293 , 190 L.Ed.2d 141 (2014) (explaining that a party cannot broadly adopt an issue that is individualized to another defendant).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joel ESQUENAZI and Carlos Rodriguez
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 14–189..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 2014.
135 S. Ct. 293
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.