green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Caldwell
See United States v. Barnes, 681 F.2d 717, 724 (11th Cir.), reh’g denied, 694 F.2d 233 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 802 (1983) (drug trafficking crime “is ‘committed’ for venue purposes both in the district where the call was made and in the district where the call was received.”); see also United States v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 508, 511 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 , 103 S.Ct. 313 , 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jerrald Albert Tyler
See United States v. Gibson 690 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 (1983). 5 Finally, although the defendant claims his lawyer did not prepare properly, object to inadmissible evidence, or cross-examine the witnesses properly, we are unable to determine from the record whether this is true and whether such conduct amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), inasmuch as it was not raised in the court below.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Sunset Bay Associates, a California Joint Venture, Debtor. Richard J. Plastino, Janice Gudde Plastino Doris L. Brown v. Eureka Federal Savings and Loan Association, and Allan Jamieson, Richard J. Plastino Janice Gudde Plastino Doris L. Brown v. Eureka Federal Savings & Loan Association
See United States v. Gibson, 690 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1446 , 75 L.Ed.2d 801 (1983) (alternative holding).
cited
Cited "see"
Plastino v. Eureka Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In re Sunset Bay Associates)
See United States v. Gibson, 690 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1446 , 75 L.Ed.2d 801 (1983) (alternative holding).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Oscar Smith, Regina Smith and Gary King, Julia Thom
The government must support its choice of venue “only by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Shearer, 794 F.2d 1545, 1551 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. London, 714 F.2d 1558 , 1564 & n. 9 (11th Cir.1983); see United States v. Barnes, 681 F.2d 717, 722 (11th Cir.1982) (The prosecution must prove territorial jurisdiction and venue, essential elements of any offense, by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 802 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Lewis, on Behalf of Nat. Semiconductor v. Sporck
See generally United States v. Gibson, 690 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1446 , 75 L.Ed.2d 801 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jo Ann Harrelson, Charles Voyed Harrelson and Elizabeth Nichols Chagra
Absent compliance with the dictates of Rule 103, “this circuit will not even consider the propriety of the decision to exclude the evidence at issue.” United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 710 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 , 100 S.Ct. 51 , 62 L.Ed.2d 34 (1979); accord, United States v. Collins, 690 F.2d 431, 438 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 801 (1983); Mills v. Levy, 537 F.2d 1331, 1333 (5th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 700 F.2d 196, 201-02 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ruben Magdaniel-Mora, Henny Dekom, Ibrahim Nunez, Francisco Vicente-Leon and Felix Calvo-Castillo
(2×)
See United States v. Barnes, 681 F.2d 717, 722 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 802 (1983); United States v. DeSimone, 660 F.2d 532, 541 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1027 , 102 S.Ct. 1732 , 72 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); United States v. Dohm, 597 F.2d 535, 539-40 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 937 , 100 S.Ct. 287 , 62 L.Ed.2d 196 (1979); United States v. Marable, 574 F.2d 224, 231 (5th Cir.1978); see also United States v. Merchant, 693 F.2d 767, 769-70 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Woody, 690 F.2d 678, 680 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mark Snarr
We review for abuse of discretion the lower court’s determination as to “whether a jury could rationally acquit on the greater offense yet convict on the lesser.” Id. (2) Applicable Law A defendant is only entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction if “(1) the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense and (2) the evidence at trial is such that a jury could rationally find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense yet acquit him of the greater.” Id. at 255 ; see also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 , 36 L.Ed.2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rene C. Martinez, Kenneth W. Noel, and Steven T. Garcia
(2×)
See e.g., United States v. Collins, 690 F.2d 431, 437 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 801 (1983); United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549, 551-53 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Eagle Hawk, 815 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1012 , 108 S.Ct. 712 , 98 L.Ed.2d 662 (1988); United States v. Elk, 658 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William H. Doucette, Jr. v. George Vose
(2×)
First, a jury that finds a killing deliberately premeditated (under proper "deliberate premeditation" instructions) is not a jury that could find manslaughter, regardless of what it thought about "malice." "Deliberate premeditation" is inconsistent with a killing that results from "passion, anger, fear, fright, or nervous excitement." United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 174 , 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1597 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) ("Plainly, a rational jury that believed Frady had formed a 'plan to kill ... a positive design to kill' with 'reflection and consideration amounting to deliberation,' could …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Ervin Dekle, Dwight Ragans, and Ronald Mangle, Defendants
See, e.g., U.S. v. Barnes, 681 F.2d 717 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 802 (1983); U.S. v. Gold, 743 F.2d 800 (11th Cir.1984) (variance exists where the evidence at trial proves facts different from those alleged in the indictment, as opposed to facts which, although not specifically mentioned in the indictment, are entirely consistent with its allegations). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cleveland R. Rodgers
See, e.g., United States v. Barnes, 681 F.2d 717, 724 (11th Cir.1982) (“The *543 question is ... whether [the defendant’s] call ... was knowingly or intentionally made for the purpose of facilitating the conspiracy.”), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1046 , 103 S.Ct. 1447 , 75 L.Ed.2d 802 (1983); United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1032 (5th Cir.1981) (“There was thus a sufficient showing that [the defendant’s] conversation ... had the unlawful purpose of facilitating the commission of the illegal possession with intent to distribute____”), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136 , 102 S.Ct. 2965 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tabares
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 82-6196.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 21, 1983.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.