green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy MacK WEST, A.K.A. Teeny Man, Etc., Defendant-Appellant
(2×)
But see United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1420 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 969 , 116 S.Ct. 430 , 133 L.Ed.2d 345 (1995) (government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the author of anonymous documents).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. West
But see United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1420 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 969 (1985) (government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the author of anonymous documents). 16 The anonymous notebook was found by the police in the home of Mark West, an integral member of the conspiracy, and the entries in the notebook corresponded with drug transactions proved by other evidence at trial.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. West
But see United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1420 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 969 , 116 S.Ct. 430 , 133 L.Ed.2d 345 (1995) (government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the author of anonymous documents).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Furrow
Section 5861(h) is rationally designed to aid in the collection of taxes imposed by other provisions of the National Firearms Act.” 455 F.2d at 148 ; see also Tons, 461 F.2d at 656 (“[ 26 U.S.C. § 5861 ] is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to tax.”); accord United States v. Dodge, 61 F.3d 142 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 969 , 116 S.Ct. 428 , 133 L.Ed.2d 343 (1995); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1018 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 , 113 S.Ct. 1614 , 123 L.Ed.2d 174 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leslie Fredrickson
See United States v. Dodge, 61 F.3d 142, 144, 146-47 (2d Cir.) (enhancement affirmed where defendant purchased gun, silencer, and explosives from confidential informant and undercover officer, having expressed intent to blow up building), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 969 , 1000 (1995); see also United States v. Martin, 78 F.3d 808, 811-13 (2d Cir. 1996) (defendant sold large quantity of cheap, low-grade, easily-concealed handguns to three men, one of whom was from New York City; court rejected argument that enhancement requires defendant’s knowledge of specific felony to be committed, concluded th…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leslie Stanley Fredrickson
See United States v. Dodge, 61 F.3d 142, 144, 146-47 (2d Cir.) (enhancement affirmed where defendant purchased gun, silencer, and explosives from confidential informant and undercover officer, having expressed intent to blow up building), ce rt. denied, 516 U.S. 969 , 116 S.Ct. 428 , 133 L.Ed.2d 343 (1995); see also United States v. Martin, 78 F.3d 808, 811-13 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant sold large quantity of cheap, low-grade, easily-concealed handguns to three men, one of whom was from New York City; court rejected argument that enhancement requires defendant’s knowledge of specific felony to…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Deandre Rudolph, A/K/A \Rudy\" Deandre Rudolph"
(2×)
See United States v. Griswold, 57 F.3d 291, 295 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 969 , 116 S.Ct. 428 , 133 L.Ed.2d 344 (1995); United States v. Bush, 56 F.3d 536, 537 (3d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jeleniewski
“Because we conclude that neither statement made by the defendant constituted even an equivocal assertion of his right to remain silent, we need not consider whether [Detective Swift] should have asked a clarifying question.” Id. at 398 ; see also United States v. D'Antoni, 856 F.2d 975, 980 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 969 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Everett Kyle Hall, Also Known as Eric, Also Known as Shorty, United States of America v. Randall Joe Hall, United States of America v. Roy Lee Hall
See also Milentz v. United States, 446 F.2d 111, 112-13 (8th Cir.1971). 22 In concluding that Congress had the authority under the taxing clause to make it a crime to possess an unregistered "firearm," the courts have explained that § 5861(d) is "in aid of a revenue purpose," Sonzinsky, 300 U.S. at 513 , 57 S.Ct. 554 , by virtue of the fact that § 5861(d) helps the government to learn "the chain of possession of a firearm" and thus to identify the maker liable for the tax, Hunter v. United States, 73 F.3d 260, 262 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam ), see also United States v. Dodge, 61 F.3d 142, 14…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Castro Cardenas
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 95-6269.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 6, 1995.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.