green
Positive treatment
Trending · 188 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
21.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2007 ·
…ouble counting is legitimate 8 where a single act is relevant to two dimensions of the 9 guidelines analysis.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Kilkenny
(2×)
ouble counting is legitimate 8 where a single act is relevant to two dimensions of the 9 guidelines analysis.
discussed
Cited "see"
Federal Trade Commission v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC
See United States v. Lauersen, 348 F.3d 329, 340 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted), as amended (Nov. 25, 2003), aff’d on reh'g, 362 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. granted and vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005); United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 660-61 (2d Cir. 1996); Pappas v. Middle Earth Condo.
cited
Cited "see"
Equity v. Md. Higher Educ. Comm'n
See Hammoud v. US , 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Caro
See United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426, 426 (4th Cir.2004) (advising courts, to announce an alternative sentence, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), treating the guidelines as advisory only), judgment vacated and remanded, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Erasto Gomez-Jimenez
See United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004), vacated 543 U.S. 1097 (2005); see also Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d at 374 & n.4 (Shedd, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Erasto Gomez-Jimenez
(2×)
See United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004), vacated 543 U.S. 1097 (2005); see also Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d at 374 & n. 4 (Shedd, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mehanna
To .the contrary, "the prosecutor’s choice [not to accept a defendant's stipulation] will generally survive a Rule 403 analysis when a defendant seeks to force the substitution of an admission for evidence creating a coherent narrative of his thoughts and actions in perpetrating the offense for which he is being tried.’’ United States v. Balsam, 203 F.3d 72, 84 (1st Cir.2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 192 , 117 S.Ct. 644 ); see United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 , 342 n. 12 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc) (explaining that where proffered stipulation "would not…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Franco-Santiago
(2×)
See United States v. Thurston, 358 F.3d 51, 63 (1st Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds by 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 984 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chandia
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316, 356 (4th Cir.2004) (affirming application of terrorism enhancement where defendant had “close connections with Hiz *341 ballah officials,” and his testimony indicated that he was “well aware of Hizballah’s terrorist activities and goals and that he personally supported this aspect of Hizballah”), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mohammad El-Mezain
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Holy Land Fdn for Relief
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shukri Baker
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mohammad El-Mezain
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mohammad El-Mezain
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shukri Abu Baker
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Holy Land Fdn for Relief
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mohammad El-Mezain
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shukri Abu Baker
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shukri Baker
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 , 342 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammond v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mohammad El-Mezain
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that videotapes found in defendant’s apartment depicting violence and anti-American sentiment were not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 in a prosecution for providing material support for a terrorist organization because they were probative of defendant’s knowledge, “provided evidence of [his] motive in raising funds for Hizballah[,] and tended to contradict [his] claim that he sympathized only with the humanitarian goals of the organization”), overruled on other grounds by Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chandia
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 356 (4th Cir.2004)(upholding district court’s application of § 3A1.4 terrorism enhancement where defendant had “close connections with Hizballah officials” and his own testimony indicated that he was “well aware of Hizballah’s terrorist activities and goals and that he personally supported this aspect of Hizballah” (emphases added)), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005); United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 313 (4th Cir.2008) (holding that enhancement was proper because defendant “attend…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Salyer
(2×)
See United States v. Pearson, 340 F.3d 459, 468 (7th Cir.2003), vacated on other grounds, Hawkins v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005) (refusing to find the government at fault for not organizing Rule 16 discovery when the rule is silent).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alvarado Perez
(2×)
See United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc order holding that the sentencing guidelines are mandatory but recommending that district courts impose alternate sentences treating the guidelines as advisory pending Supreme Court guidance), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005) (for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lopez
See United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir.2004) (stating “[t]oday, we overrule Lamson and adopt the *689 reasonable probability test”), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 984 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dickel
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 , 354-55 (4th Cir.2004), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benkahla
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 341 (4th Cir.2004) (“The mere fact that the evidence will damage the defendant’s case is not enough — the evidence must be unfairly prejudicial, and the unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” (quotation omitted, emphasis in original)), vacated on unrelated grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Campa
(2×)
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 , 333 n. 6 (en banc) (4th Cir.2004), vacated and remanded, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 , opinion reinstated in part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fischer v. State
See Fischer, 207 S.W.3d at 854 (concluding that “the narrow issue before us was not presented in Bluhaugh, but rather, appears to have been waived”). . 80 Fed.Appx. 836, 843 (4th Cir.2003) (not designated for publication), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1116 , 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 989 (2005). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dale
See United States v. Hanhardt, 361 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds, Altobello v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 994 , 160 L.Ed.2d 996 (2005); Gibson, 155 F.3d at 846 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dale, Jason B.
See United States v. Hanhardt, 361 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, Altobello v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005); Gibson, 155 F.3d at 846 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kilkenny
(2×)
See United States v. Lauersen, 348 F.3d 329, 343 (2d Cir.2003), vacated on other grounds by 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005); see also United States v. Campbell, 967 F.2d 20, 25 (2d Cir.1992) (“[D]ouble counting is legitimate where a single act is relevant to two dimensions of the Guidelines analysis.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bouygues Telecom, S.A. v. Tekelec
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 337 (4th Cir.2004), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), opinion reinstated in relevant part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that where work was subjected to peer review, terrorism expert could rely on comparison of information against relevant experience, due to absence of a formal methodology).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brandon
See Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Chapman
See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 341 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc) (“The mere fact that the evidence will damage the defendant’s case is not enough — the evidence must be unfairly prejudicial, and the unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), vacated on other grounds, Hammoud v. U.S., 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fischer v. State
(2×)
See United States v. Rideout, 80 Fed.Appx. 836, 843 (4th Cir. 2003) (not designated for publication), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1116 , 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 989 (2005); Blu-baugh, 904 P.2d at 700 . 13 However, as the cases cited above illustrate, the majority of courts that have considered whether narratives qualify as present sense impressions hold that they do not.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Singleton
See Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph Edmund Williams, A/K/A Abdullah Shabazz, A/K/A Taharqa Abdullah Shabazz
See Hammoud v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brock
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 , 353 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), judgment vacated, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Assi
See United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316, 328-29 (4th Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), reinstated in relevant part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Glenn Benton Finck
See United States v. Jackson, 346 F.3d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 2003) (finding an identity theft scheme to be sophisticated although each step of obtaining information about the victim was relatively simple because “the total scheme was sophisticated in the way all the steps were linked together so that [the defendant] could perceive and exploit different vulnerabilities in different systems in a coordinated way”), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Lauersen v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1109 (2005); United States v. Rettenberger, 344 F.3d 702, 709 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding that husband and wife’s …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Glenn Benton Finck, Also Known as Beau Lee Dubois
See United States v. Jackson, 346 F.3d 22, 25 (2d Cir.2003) (finding an identity theft scheme to be sophisticated although each step of obtaining information about the victim was relatively simple because “the total scheme was sophisticated in the way all the steps were linked together so that [the defendant] could perceive and exploit different vulnerabilities in different systems in a coordinated way”), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Lauersen v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005); United States v. Rettenberger, 344 F.3d 702, 709 (7th Cir.2003) (finding…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Elshinawy
See, e.g., United States v. Hammond, 381 F. 3d 316 , 327 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), reinstated in part, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Juvenal Ambriz
See also United States v. Rideout, 80 Fed.Appx. 836, 841 (4th Cir.2003), judgment vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1116 , 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 989 (2005) (unpublished but persuasive) ("As many courts have held, the elements of simple possession are not a subset of the elements of distribution ....
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Selvie
The government must prove “a detrimental effect upon [its] efforts to investigate or prosecute the instant offense.” United States v. Griffin, 310 F.3d 1017, 1023 (7th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Hanhardt, 361 F.3d 382, 389-90 (7th Cir.2004) (interpreting Section 3Cl.l’s application notes to require the government to demonstrate “[significant and actual obstruction or impediment” to apply an obstruction enhancement), vacated and remanded for re-sentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), sub nom., Altobello v. United…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Radley
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Pearson, 340 F.3d 459, 466-67 (7th Cir.2003) (applying Section 3237 to wire fraud charge), rev’d on other grounds by Hawkins v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005); United States v. Eber-sole, 411 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir.2005) (wire fraud is a continuing offense); United States v. Kim, 246 F.3d 186, 192-93 (2d Cir.2001) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mubayyid
Generally In examining the adequacy of the FISA applications, certifications, and orders at issue, the Court reviewed the materials “de novo with no deference accorded to the FISC’s probable cause determinations, but with a presumption of validity accorded to the certifications.” United States v. Rosen, 447 F.Supp.2d 538, 545 (E.D.Va.2006); see also United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 332 (4th Cir.2004) (conducting de novo review of FISA materials), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1051 , 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Taylor
See, e.g., United States v. Thurston (" Thurston I "), 358 F.3d 51, 78-79 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that U.S.S.G. § 5H1.11 states that courts should impose lower sentences only for "extraordinary" good works), vacated and remanded in light of Booker, 125 S.Ct. 984 , 543 U.S. 1097 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Taylor
See, e.g., United States v. Thurston (“Thurston /”), 358 F.3d 51, 78-79 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that U.S.S.G. § 5H1.11 states that courts should impose lower sentences only for “extraordinary” good works), vacated and remanded in light of Booker, 125 S.Ct. 984 , 543 U.S. 1097 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pasquantino
(2×)
See, e.g., Hawkins v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 , 125 S.Ct. 1109 , 160 L.Ed.2d 988 (2005) (granting the petition for rehearing, vacating the previous denial of certiorari, granting certiorari, and remanding for further consideration in light of Booker); Petr’s Pet. for Reh’g, Hawkins, No. 05-715, 2006 WL 247285 , *4 (Feb. 1, 2006) (noting that the Sixth Amendment ground for appeal had not been previously presented).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hawkins
v.
United States
v.
United States
03-1326.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 24, 2005.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)
HAWKINS
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 03-1326.
Supreme Court of United States.
January 24, 2005.
1
Petitions for rehearing granted. Orders denying petitions for writs of ceriorari vacated. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, ante, p. 220.