United States v. Don Stovall & Robert Harlon \Frosty\" Winter", 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Don Stovall & Robert Harlon \Frosty\" Winter", 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Ignacio Andrade-Lopez (ca5, 2019-06-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Ignacio Andrade-Lopez
5th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 824, 827 (5th Cir.), amended on other grounds by 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Javier Cantu
5th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 824 (5th Cir.), amended on other grounds by 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987). 2
cited Cited "see" United States v. Mark Garza, Jr.
5th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 824 (5th Cir.), amended by 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Lerma
5th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 825 (5th Cir.), amended, 833 F.2d 526 (1987).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Vijay Parekh
5th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 823 (5th Cir.), modified, 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir.1987) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Daniel K. Conners
8th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 823 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 833 F.2d 526 (1987); United States v. Marquardt, 786 F.2d 771, 779 (7th Cir.1986).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Orlando Richard Velasquez
5th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 824 (5th Cir.), modified, 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Don STOVALL and Robert Harlon “Frosty” Winter, Defendants-Appellants
86-1453.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 24, 1987.
833 F.2d 526
1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 16167
John H. Hagler, Dallas, Tex., for Stovall., Robert H. Winter, pro se., Henry D. Gabriel, Loyola Law School, New Orleans, La. (court-appointed), for Winter., Joseph C. Wyderko, Washington, D.C., Marvin Collins, U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for the U.S.
Williams, Mentz.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that references to the special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3013 appearing in the court’s opinion in this case are DELETED as irrelevant to the decision.

At the conclusion in Part III A of our opinion in this case, we indicated that Ray v. United States, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2093, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987), did not apply, and the concurrent sentence doctrine made it unnecessary to review the convictions on several of the counts. Our conclusion was that the $50 special assessment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013, had not been ordered although mandated by that section. Government counsel has pointed out to us that § 3013 was enacted after the offenses charged in this case occurred. Therefore,[*527] the special assessments called for in that section could not have been imposed.