green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul Winestock, Jr.
See United, States v. Winestock, 110 F.3d 62 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 855 , 118 S.Ct. 151 , 139 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Winestock
See United States v. Winestock, 110 F.3d 62 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 855 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William E. Dunlap
But where a court of appeals vacates a sentence or reverses a finding related to sentencing and remands the case for resentencing without placing any limitations on the district court, the court "can hear any relevant evidence on that issue that it could have heard at the first hearing." United States v. Cornelius, 968 F.2d 703,705 (8th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and parentheticals omitted); see also United States v. Behler, 100 F.3d 632, 635 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 855 (1997); United States v. Kang, 197 F.3d 927, 928 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); United States v. Curtis, 3…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William E. Dunlap
But where a court of appeals vacates a sentence or reverses a finding related to sentencing and remands the case for resen- *750 tencing without placing any limitations on the district court, the court “can hear any relevant evidence on that issue that it could have heard at the first hearing.” United States v. Cornelius, 968 F.2d 703, 705 (8th Cir.1992) (internal citations and parentheticals omitted); see also United States v. Behler, 100 F.3d 632, 635 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 855 , 118 S.Ct. 152 , 139 L.Ed.2d 98 (1997); United States v. Kang, 197 F.3d 927, 928 (8th Cir.1999…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cordell Ray Simms
It is true that in United States v. Cabbell, 35 F.3d 1255, 1260 (8th Cir.1994) (Cabbell), this court reversed an obstruction of justice enhancement because “the district court did not evaluate [the defendant’s] testimony in a light most favorable to him as required by section 3C1.1, application note 1.” 3 Howev *1102 er, we note that, effective November 1, 1997, “an amendment to [§ 3C1.1] ... removed the ‘ “most favorable” language and advised courts simply to “be cognizant that inaccurate testimony or statement may result from confusion, mistake, or faulty memory, and thus no…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cordell Ray Simms
It is true that in United States v. Cabbell, 35 F.3d 1255, 1260 (8th Cir. 1994) (Cabbell), this court reversed an obstruction of justice enhancement because "the district court did not evaluate [the defendant's] testimony in a light most favorable to him as required by section 3C1.1, application note 1."3 However, we note that, effective November 1, 1997, "an amendment to [§ 3C1.1] . . . removed the "'most favorable' language and advised courts simply to 'be cognizant that inaccurate testimony or statement may result from confusion, mistake, or faulty memory, and thus not all testimony or sta…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Johnson
v.
Gudmanson, Warden
v.
Gudmanson, Warden
No. 96-9537.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1997.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.