green
Positive treatment
5.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Broussard
United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 770 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 246 , 126 L.Ed.2d 200 (1993) (concluding that enhancement is proper if the guns are found at the same location where drugs are stored or where a drug transaction occurred); see United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994); United States v. Menesses, 962 F.2d 420, 428-29 (5th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sylvester Tolliver, Gerald Elwood, Danielle Bernard Metz, Gennero Arthur, Noah Moore, Jr., Marlo Helmstetter, Glenn Metz, and Shane Sterling, United States of America v. Noah Moore, Jr.
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994); United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tolliver
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994); United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Moore
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1310 (1994); United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Willie James Polk, Derick O. Carter, Robert Welch and Ronald McMillian
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994); United States v. Ford, 993 F.2d 249, 252 (D.C.Cir.1993) (“[I]n cases in which contraband or firearms are discovered in a place occupied by more than one *631 person, the Government must establish ‘the likelihood that in some discernible fashion the accused had a voice vis-a-vis’ the items in question”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Crain and Tony Watkins
(2×)
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Samuel Ervin Mills
Accord United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994); United States v. Ford, 993 F.2d 249, 252 (D.C.Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Casilla
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 342 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994); United States v. Stone, 960 F.2d 426, 433 (5th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICHARD LOWDER
See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (explaining that government may satisfy its burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that defendant possessed weapon by showing that weapon was found in same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia were stored or where part of transaction occurred), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198 , 114 S. Ct. 1310 , 127 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Flemmi
Compare United States v. Adams, 1 F.3d 1566, 1574 (11th Cir.1993) ("the Blockbur-ger test is to be applied to the statutory elements underlying each indictment, or count, not to the averments that go beyond the statutory elements”), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198 , 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994) with United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 652 (D.C.Cir.1980) ("the prohibí *56 tion in the Constitution against placing an accused twice in jeopardy 'for the same offense' is directed at the actual 'offense' with which he is charged and not only at the violated statutes”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,786 United States of America v. Edward L. Ruggiero and Christopher S. Parker
Rather, we have stated that we will “sustain the verdict if a rational trier of fact could have found all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1404 (5th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 341 (5th Cir.1993) (“The standard of review in assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal quotations omitted)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ruggiero
Rather, we have stated that we will "sustain the verdict if a rational trier of fact could have found all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1404 (5th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 341 (5th Cir. 1993) ("The standard of review in assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (internal quotations omitted)), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1310 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Delores Bennett, United States of America v. Noble Laverne Bennett, Also Known as Turtle, Also Known as Little Brother, United States of America v. George Dixon, Also Known as Willie MacK Also Known as Dick, Also Known as Big Brother, United States of America v. Darryl Gillespie, Also Known as Hawk, Also Known as Hawkeye
Compare United States v. Adams, 1 F.3d 1566, 1574 (11th Cir.1993) ("the Blockburger test is to be applied to the statutory elements underlying each indictment, or count, not to the averments that go beyond the statutory elements"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994) with United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 652 (D.C.Cir.1980) ("the prohibition in the Constitution against placing an accused twice in jeopardy 'for the same offense' is directed at the actual 'offense' with which he is charged and not only at the violated statutes").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bennett
Compare United States v. Adams, 1 F.3d 1566, 1574 (11th Cir.1993) (“the Blockburger test is to be applied to the statutory elements underlying each indictment, or count, not to the averments that go beyond the statutory elements”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1310 , 127 L.Ed.2d 660 (1994) with United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 652 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“the prohibition in the Constitution against placing an accused twice in jeopardy ‘for the same offense’ is directed at the actual ‘offense’ with whieh he is charged and not only at the violated statutes”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bolinder
v.
Bateman
v.
Bateman
93-7353.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 21, 1994.
Published
Bolinder
v.
Bateman et al.
No. 93-7353.
Supreme Court of United States.
March 21, 1994.
1
Appeal from the Ct. App. Utah.
2
Certiorari denied.