United States v. William Boss Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768 (11th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. William Boss Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768 (11th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Williams (ca11, 2008-05-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Williams (2×)
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
We have applied this interpretation of § 1341, finding that "[e]ach mailing in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate violation of the mail fraud statute." United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kent
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Waldrop v. Jones, 77 F.3d 1308 , 1313 n. 3 (11th Cir.1996) ("We decline to address an issue not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal.”); United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987). 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kent
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Waldrop v. Jones, 77 F.3d 1308 , 1313 n.3 (11th Cir. 1996) (“We decline to address an issue not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal.”); United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir. 1987). 2 In the apartment where Kent resided, law enforcement officials found sixteen firearms.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Everett
11th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987); App. R 4(b).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. George M. Khoury, Howard Kluver, David W. West, Louis H. Chippas
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam); United States v. Rodriguez, 582 F.2d 1015, 1016 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam); United States v. Gray, 464 F.2d 632 , 634 n. 1 (8th Cir.1972); United States v. Prince, 456 F.2d 1070, 1070-71 (5th Cir.1972); but cf. United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565, 573 (9th Cir.) (non-jurisdictional rule of forbearance with extraordinary circumstances exception), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 866 , 102 S.Ct. 329 , 70 L.Ed.2d 168 (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frank Martorana, A/K/A Francis Arthur Martorana v. United States
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See United States v. Aleman, 832 F.2d 142, 145-46 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. King
D. Mass. · 1988 · confidence medium
Although at least one court has ruled that a defendant who wishes to challenge his PSR “must follow the procedures set out in Rule 32,” United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added), as noted above, we have a duty to construe liberally the pleadings of a pro se litigant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Thaddeus Adonis Long, United States of America v. Edward Larry Jackson (2×)
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Reveron Martinez, 836 F.2d 684, 688 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam); United States v. Debango, 780 F.2d 81 , 86 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1986); United States v. Colon-Padilla, 770 F.2d 1328 , 1334 n. 6 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Jarrett, 705 F.2d 198, 209 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1004 , 104 S.Ct. 995 , 79 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984); United States v. Boffa, 688 F.2d 919, 938 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1022 , 103 S.Ct. 1272 , 75 L.Ed.2d 494 (1983); United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830-31 (9t…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Robel Alberto Vargas
11th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987).
cited Cited "see" Scott Dale White v. State of Florida, Department of Corrections Harry K. Singletary, Robert Butterworth
11th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. James Barnes
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Allen, 16 F.3d at 378 ; Walling, 982 F.2d at 448-49 ; see also United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987) (providing that where a criminal defendant fails to challenge information contained in a presentence report at the time of sentencing, defendant may not subsequently challenge the accuracy of the presentence report); United States v. Ruiz, 580 F.2d 177, 178 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1051 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William Boss EDMONDSON, Defendant-Appellant
86-7439, 86-7785.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jun 5, 1987.
818 F.2d 768
J.B. Sessions, U.S. Atty., Ginny S. Granade, Asst. U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Godbold, Vance, Johnson.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Edmondson appeals from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). He contends[*769] that he could not legally be charged with multiple counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 because the separate loan applications that he mailed were sent to only one source. Each mailing in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate violation of the mail fraud statute. Badders v. U.S., 240 U.S. 391, 394, 36 S.Ct. 367, 368, 60 L.Ed. 706 (1960); U.S. v. Ash-down, 509 F.2d 793, 800 (5th Cir.1975). He also contends that his sentence was based on a presentence investigation report that was mostly erroneous, and that the court was informed that it was erroneous.

Both defendant and his counsel were asked if they wished to make a statement before sentencing, and they responded. After their responses the judge asked them whether there was anything they found in the presentence report that was incorrect. Defendant responded: “Your Honor, since I throw myself at the mercy of the court, I take no exceptions.” Counsel responded: “No, your Honor.” At no point during the sentencing hearing did defendant or his counsel complain that they had inadequate time to examine the PSI or assert that it contained inaccuracies. A defendant who wishes to challenge factual statements in a PSI must follow the procedures set out in Rule 32. Simmons v. US., 777 F.2d 660 (11th Cir.1985); U.S. v. Ruiz, 580 F.2d 177, 178 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1051, 99 S.Ct. 732, 58 L.Ed.2d 712 (1978). [1]

The defendant also contends that his counsel was ineffective for not contending that the government illegally pressed criminal charges against him when its claims are really civil. This issue was not raised before the district court and therefore is not before this court on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We have jurisdiction under the appeal taken from denial of the Rule 35(a) motion, 86-7785, and all issues raised can be decided in that appeal. Therefore, we do not need to decide whether, in 86-7439, defendant could appeal from the denial of a post-sentencing motion to correct inaccuracies in the PSI, purportedly filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.