green
Positive treatment
10.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Acothley v. Perry
See generally United States v. Novaton, 211 F.3d 968, 988-89 (11th Cir.2001) ("Nevertheless, because of the well-settled principle that it is preferred that persons who are charged together should also be tried together . .. the denial of a motion for severance. will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.”), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Carter v. State
See United, States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 1010-1011 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002); Herring v. State, 730 So.2d 1264, 1267 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1003 , 119 S.Ct. 2337 , 144 L.Ed.2d 235 (1999); Williams v. State, 534 So.2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Floyd Lovell Fish
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-90 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002). *1206 SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. 1 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kelly M. Clough
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (ruling that as a general matter, if a district court errs in sentencing, we remand for resentencing on an open record), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy Allen Wenner
(2×)
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-90 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002). 19 VACATED and REMANDED.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Valencia
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 888-90 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Torre-Rodriguez
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (concluding that if a district court errs in sentencing, on remand, it should generally be free to consider any matters relevant to sentencing, even those that may not have been raised at the first sentencing hearing), ce rt. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Valenzuela-Hernandez
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 889-90 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (allowing the government to introduce omitted evidence on remand), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Arredondo-Soto
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael A. Riley
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that on remand "the district court generally should be free to consider any matters relevant to sentencing, even those that may not have been raised at the first sentencing hearing, as if it were sentencing de novo”), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Randall Wilson Britt
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that, as a general matter, on a remand for resentencing, the district court may consider new evidence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lomow
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (noting that we may limit the scope of the sentencing issue on remand), ce rt. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002). 2.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Maria Guadalupe Lopez-Garcia
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. King
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-86, 889 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. J.R. Gonzales
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-86 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that, as a general matter, on a remand for resentencing, the district court may take new evidence), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Washington
See United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 1011-12 (11th Cir.2001) (finding no adverse effect based on attorney’s “vigorous and relentless” representation), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 , 70 U.S.L.W. 3742 (U.S. June 3, 2002) (No. 01-9977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Varela-Marquez
See United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 889-90 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (allowing the district court to permit the government to introduce omitted evidence on remand), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Oscar Acosta Delgado
See id.; see also United States v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir.), *1072 cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 , 122 S.Ct. 2345 , 153 L.Ed.2d 173 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Abreu
v.
Huffman, Warden
v.
Huffman, Warden
01-9976.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 3, 2002.
Published
ABREU
v.
HUFFMAN, WARDEN.
No. 01-9976.
Supreme Court of the United States.
June 3, 2002.
1
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 27 Fed. Appx. 500.