green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.1 score
“the quantity of the controlled substance is a sentencing issue”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Vacated
United States v. Ardley
Ed. 2d 3 (2000), opinion on remand as United States v. Wims, 245 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Curry, 211 F.3d 129 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. granted, judgment vacated by Curry v. United States, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S. Ct. 376 , 148 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Calvin Wayne Buckland
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
the quantity of the controlled substance is a sentencing issue
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James Yates
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 919–20, 922 (7th Cir.), cert. denied in part, 531 U.S. 953 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James Yates
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 919–20, 922 (7th Cir.), cert. denied in part, 531 U.S. 953 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James Yates
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 919–20, 922 (7th Cir.), cert. denied in part, 531 U.S. 953 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dahda
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 914 (7th Cir.), overruled on other grounds, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000). 6 For both reasons, the territorial limitations do not meaningfully curb the danger of forum shopping. 7 * * * In sum, we hold that the facial defects in the nine wiretap authorization orders did not require suppression.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hector Feliciano(074395)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 914 (7th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, Jackson v. United States, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000); United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 553 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1123-24 (2d Cir.1993) (interpreting analogous “roving bug” provision under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518 (11)(a)), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1069 , 114 S.Ct. 1644 , 128 L.Ed.2d 364 (1994); see also United States v. Silberman, 732 F.Supp. 1057, 1062-63 (S.D.Cal.1990), aff'd in part, vacated in part sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
Limestone Devmt Corp v. Village of Lemont
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 914 (7th Cir.), vacated and re- manded for reconsideration on unrelated grounds, 531 U.S. 953 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Limestone Development v. Village of Lemont, Ill.
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 914 (7th Cir.), vacated and remanded for reconsideration on unrelated grounds, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Williams, Kevin
See United States v. Jackson, 531 U.S. 953 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Williams
See Jackson v. United States, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000). *766 For reasons that are not explained, it was almost four years before Williams had a new sentencing hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Elwaldo R. James v. Rickie Harrison, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 918-19 (7th Cir.2000), vacated in part, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (holding defense counsel’s absence did not constitute “abandonment by the lawyer of his client,” which “would require reversal irrespective of prejudice,” because counsel for co-defendants were present and generally protected the defendant’s interests).
discussed
Cited "see"
James v. Harrison
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 918-19 (7th Cir. 2000), vacated in part, 531 U.S. 953 (2000) (holding defense counsel’s absence did not constitute "abandonment by the lawyer of his client," which "would require reversal irrespective of prejudice," because counsel for co-defendants were present and generally pro- tected the defendant’s interests).
discussed
Cited "see"
Haywood v. United States
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 922 (7th Cir.2000), vacated in part by 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (but not as to Haywood) (citing Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 307 , 116 S.Ct. 1241 , 134 L.Ed.2d 419 (1996)), reinstated by 236 F.3d 886 (7th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parks v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 913 (7th Cir.2000), vacated in part by 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (but not as to Parks).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Denzell Russell
Compare United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 917 (7th Cir.) (calling it “unusual” but saying nothing “prevent[s] it), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 953 (2000); with United States v. Jones, 73 F.3d 336 , 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (saying it’s “not obvious” as a rule but recognizing a “few compelling cases”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spears v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Jackson v. U.S., 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000) (remanding to United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for “further consideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey ”); McCloud v. Florida, 531 U.S. 1063 , 121 S.Ct. 751 , 148 L.Ed.2d 654 (2001) (remanding to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Knox, Sammy v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2000), remanded, 531 U.S. 953 (2000), decision on remand, 236 F.3d 886 (2001).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sammy Knox v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.2000), remanded, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000), decision on remand, 236 F.3d 886 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Calvin Wayne Buckland
(2×)
See United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2000) (stating, shortly after Apprendi , that “Congress ... clearly intended that drug quantity be a sentencing factor, not an element of the crime under § 841,” and listing cases); see also, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 920 (7th Cir.) (stating, only a few months prior to Apprendi , that “[i]t is apparent that Congress intended the type and quantity of the drugs distributed by a defendant convicted under section 841(a) to be determined at sentencing”), judgment vacated and remanded for further consideration…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Santiago-Vazquez
United States v. Brough, 243 F.3d at 1079 ; see also United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910 , 920 (7th Cir.2000) (describing Congress’ intent to have type and quantity of drugs used as sentencing factors by the judge), cert. granted in part, 531 U.S. 953 , 121 S.Ct. 376 , 148 L.Ed.2d 290 (2000), on remand to 236 F.3d 886 (7th Cir.2001), judgment reinstated by 236 F.3d 886 (7th Cir.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Curry
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 99-10265.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 30, 2000.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000).