green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
42.4 score
“the fifth and sixth amendments demand that a grand jury indictment set forth each essential element of an offense.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Selene Suarez
the fifth and sixth amendments demand that a grand jury indictment set forth each essential element of an offense.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
U.S. v. Correa-Ventura
later congress' understanding of the legislative intent of an earlier congress is entitled to deference.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kevin Aparicio-Leon
An indictment must allege only the “essential element[s] of an offense.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Dentler, 492 F.3d 306 , 310–11 (5th Cir. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dentler
A grand jury indictment must “set forth each essential element of an offense.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harms
(2×)
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Williams
Id. (citing United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Conley
United States v. Cabrera-Teran, 168 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir.1999). 2 “The test of the validity of an indictment is ‘not whether the indictment could have been framed in a more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards.’ ... [A] statutory citation cannot, standing alone, meet this test.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chase
Case Law Until 1998 The three most commonly espoused theories of “use” were as follows: (1) The defendant “used” the firearm as an item of barter in a guns-for-drugs trade, see Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 240-41 , 113 S.Ct. 2050 , 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993); (2) the fortress theory — when firearms and narcotics are found on the premises and the firearm is under the control of the defendant, see, e.g., United States v. Critton, 43 F.3d 1089, 1096-97 (6th Cir.1995) (discussing the fortress theory and holding that weapons are used or carried, for § 924(c) purposes, when it reason…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dixon
Defendant relies upon Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120 , 120 S.Ct. 2090 , 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000), holding that under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(1988 ed.) the type of weapon is an element of the offense, not a sentencing factor 2 and United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989) (requisite mental state for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) is knowledge of the facts constituting the offense).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Madere v. State
In United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989), the Fifth Circuit stated: The test of the validity of an indictment is "not whether the indictment could have been framed in a more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards." United State v. Webb, 747 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 1222 , 84 L.Ed.2d 362 (1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Barrientos
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stewart
Although it is vital for an indictment to include all elements of a charged offense, “the law does not compel a ritual of words” when determining if an indictment is sufficient. *584 United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989); see United States v. deVegter, 198 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ramirez
See Richards, 204 F.3d at 191; U.S. v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richards
In determining the sufficiency of the indictment, “[t]he law does not compel a ritual of words.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989)(quoting United States v. Purvis, 580 F.2d 853, 857-858 (5th Cir.1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Curtis Madere v. State of Mississippi
In United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit stated: The test of the validity of an indictment is "not whether the indictment could have been framed in a more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards." United State v. Webb, 747 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 1222 , 84 L.Ed.2d 362 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jaime Castillo Brad Eugene Branch Renos Lenny Avraam Graeme Leonard Craddock Kevin A. Whitecliff
The "fortress theory” provides that a defendant may be convicted under § 924(c)(1) "where large numbers of firearms were readily available in strategic locations near large quantities of drugs and money.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir.1989). 4 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cabrera-Teran
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See also United States v. Chaney, 964 F.2d 437, 447 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989). 4 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lake
Nelson, 27 F.3d at 200 ; United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Hill, 971 F.2d 1461, 1464 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Ospina, 18 F.3d 1332, 1336 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Wilkins, 911 F.2d 337 , 338 n.1 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Robertson, 901 F.2d 733, 734 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Munoz- Fabela, 896 F.2d 908, 911 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Hunter, 887 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hilton A. Lake, Hilton A. Lake
(2×)
Nelson, 27 F.3d at 200 ; United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Hill, 971 F.2d 1461, 1464 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Ospina, 18 F.3d 1332, 1336 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Wilkins, 911 F.2d 337 , 338 n. 1 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Robertson, 901 F.2d 733, 734 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Munoz-Fabela, 896 F.2d 908, 911 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Hunter, 887 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Roger Gobert
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir.1989). 34 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Zeigler
When a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment is raised on a § 2255 motion to vacate, “[t]he test of the sufficiency of the indictment . . . is whether the indictment by any reasonable construction can be said to charge the offense for which the sentence was imposed.” Marteney v. United States, 216 F.2d 760, 762 (10th Cir. 1954)(quotation omitted); see also United States v. Wydermyer, 51 F.3d 319, 325 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Forbes, 16 F.3d 1294, 1297 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chester Vernon Zeigler
When a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment is raised on a § 2255 motion to vacate, "[t]he test of the sufficiency of the indictment ... is whether the indictment by any reasonable construction can be said to charge the offense for which the sentence was imposed." Marteney v. United States, 216 F.2d 760, 762 (10th Cir.1954)(quotation omitted); see also United States v. Wydermyer, 51 F.3d 319, 325 (2d Cir.1995); United States v. Forbes, 16 F.3d 1294, 1297 (1st Cir.1994); United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bailey v. United States
See 36 F. 3d, at 109 ; accord, United States v. Castro-Lara, supra, at 983 ; United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F. 2d 587, 597-598 (CA3 1989); United States v. Wilson, 884 F. 2d 174, 177 (CA5 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Steven Ray Bright and Larry Eugene Dozier, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64 (1962); United States v. Martinez, 981 F.2d 867, 872 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1874 (1993). 15 Generally, the test is not whether "the indictment could have been framed in a more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards." United States v. Webb, 747 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marcos Loinas Anderson, A/K/A Marcos Loynas Anderson, A/K/A T. Torrero, A/K/A Samuel Perez, United States of America v. Maria Berdecia, A/K/A Maria C. Depalacio, A/K/A Consuela, United States of America v. Norberto Garces, A/K/A Victorio Torres, Piro, United States of America v. Gabriel Ruperto Davis-Munoz, A/K/A Gabriel Davis, Gabelin, United States of America v. Alfredo Brathwaite, A/K/A Sealy, Alfredo West, Freddie, United States of America v. Beverly Elaine Nelson, A/K/A Beverly M. Nelson, United States of America v. Robert Luis Castillo, A/K/A Robert Luis Castillo-Garrido, United States of America v. Antonio Scott, A/K/A Tony Anderson, Tony, United States of America v. Leonard Lancelot Shand, A/K/A Steve, United States of America v. Vielka Dudley, A/K/A Vielka Dudley-Maynard, Vielka Davis, Benky, United States of America v. Antonio Scott, A/K/A Tony Anderson, Tony, United States of America v. Michael Jonathan Booze, United States of America v. Thomas Timothy Booze, A/K/A Timmy, United States of America v. Gregory Orlander Booze
See United States v. Laing, 889 F.2d 281, 289 (D.C.Cir.1989) (upholding Sec. 924(c)(1) conviction although defendant acquitted on predicate offense); accord United States v. Hill, 971 F.2d 1461, 1463-64 (10th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Ospina, 18 F.3d 1332, 1336 (6th Cir.1994) (defendant pled guilty to Sec. 924(c)(1) violation only, and not to predicate drug trafficking offense); accord Myers v. United States, 993 F.2d 171, 172 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Hunter, 887 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Munoz-Fabela, 896 F.2d 908, 910-11 (5th Cir.1990) (defendant pl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anderson
See United States v. Laing, 889 F.2d 281, 289 (D.C.Cir.1989) (upholding § 924(c)(1) conviction although defendant acquitted on predicate offense); accord United States v. Hill, 971 F.2d 1461, 1463-64 (10th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Ospina, 18 F.3d 1332, 1336 (6th Cir.1994) (defendant pled guilty to § 924(c)(1) violation only, and not to predicate drug trafficking offense); accord Myers v. United States, 993 F.2d 171, 172 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Hunter, 887 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Munoz-Fabela, 896 F.2d 908, 910-11 (5th Cir.1990) (defendant pled g…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Foy
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Harris
Although the statute does not include a scienter requirement, it is supplied by “the general rule of construction that ‘knowledge *1280 of the facts constituting the offense is ordinarily implied’ where a ‘statute does not expressly mention any mental element.’ ” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 178 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Randall Ray Willoughby
Even if he were not charged separately with or convicted of that crime, see, e.g., United States v. Hill, 971 F.2d 1461, 1463-64 (10th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Bailey, 995 F.2d 1113, 1121 (D.C.Cir.1993) (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ricky C. Nelson
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir.1989); Hill, 971 F.2d at 1464 ; Ospina, 18 F.3d at 1336 ; United States v. Wilkins, 911 F.2d 337 , 338 n. 1 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. *201 Robertson, 901 F.2d 733, 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962 , 111 S.Ct. 395 , 112 L.Ed.2d 405 (1990); Munoz-Fabela, 896 F.2d at 911 ; Hunter, 887 F.2d at 1003 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joaquin Ospina (93-3129) and Mary Miller (93-3353)
Even if we were to adopt the view of the Fifth Circuit, that the defendant’s guilty plea in the state court was insufficient to establish the predicate drug trafficking offense; United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir.1989), here, the defendant admitted that he delivered cocaine.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dennis David Samuels v. United States
Thus, to prevail, Samuels must prove that the indictment "does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted." United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). 18 Samuels argues that since there is no specific reference to a drug trafficking crime in Count 4, he was left to speculate upon what he had to defend as to that element of Sec. 924(c).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pace
(2×)
In a nutshell, the “fortress theory” line of cases states that “the sheer volume of weapons and drugs makes reasonable the inference that the weapons involved were carried in relation to the predicate drug offense since they increase the likelihood the drug offense will succeed.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terrell Sherwood Coleman
(2×)
The "during and in relation to" language is designed to prevent conviction for mere possession of a firearm during the course of criminal conduct; " 'the government is shouldered with the burden of establishing some relationship between the firearm [the defendant] possessed and the predicate drug trafficking offense.' " United States v. Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 224 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. v. Jones
An indictment is sufficient unless "`so defective that it does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted.'" United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Trollinger, 415 F.2d 527, 528 (5th Cir. 1969)). 6 Jones's indictment certainly meets this standard, as it explicitly charges him with a crime under the second paragraph of section 2113(a).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mark Anthony Jones, United States of America v. Ira Dwayne Drayton
An indictment is sufficient unless “ ‘so defective that it does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted.’” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Trollinger, 415 F.2d 527, 528 (5th Cir.1969)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kenneth Williams, Robert Kitchens, and Jacky Green
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 178-79 (5th Cir.1989) (citing United States v. Nelson, 733 F.2d 364, 370-71 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 937 , 105 S.Ct. 341 , 83 L.Ed.2d 276 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Parkhurst
In reaching its conclusion, the DeLuca court relied on Palomino v. United States, 318 F.2d 613, 616 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 932 , 84 S.Ct. 335 , 11 L.Ed.2d 264 (1963), for the federal rule that an indictment that is not timely challenged will not be held insufficient “unless it is so obviously defected that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense for which the conviction was had.” See also United States v. Watkins, 709 F.2d 475, 478 (7th Cir.1983) (holding that omission of the word “knowingly” from an indictment not challenged until after trial was…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. v. Cannon
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William Michael Cannon
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alma Aldrete, United States of America v. Manuel Thomas Hendrix
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177-79 (5th Cir.1989) (citing, inter alia, United States v. Barber, 594 F.2d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835 (1979)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Candelario Gutierrez, Jose Medina, and Jose Soto
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. (citing United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jackie Ray Hill
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir.1989).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Barbara Chaney
(3×)
Practical, not technical, considerations govern the validity of an indictment, 26 and the test of the validity of an indictment is “not whether the indictment could have been framed in a more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards.” United States v. Webb, 747 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir.1984) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 1222 , 84 L.Ed.2d 362 (1985); see also United States v. De La Rosa, 911 F.2d 985, 988-89 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2275 , 114 *447 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991); United States v. Wilson, 884…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Wesley Morehead, Sr., John Wesley Morehead, Jr., and Jackie Ray Hill
(2×)
Cf. United States v. Wilkins, 911 F.2d 337 , 338 n. 1 (9th Cir.1990) (defendant may be convicted of § 924(c) without being convicted of underlying crime of violence or drug trafficking crime); United States v. Robertson, 901 F.2d 733, 734 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 395 , 112 L.Ed.2d 405 (1990) (same); United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir.1989) (defendant may be charged in a single-count indictment with § 924(c)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James Edward Evans
Knowledge of possession is an essential element of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) (count 1), see United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir.1988); knowledge of use is an essential element of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1) (count 3), United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177-79 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Duane Alan Smith A.K.A. Jameel Hakeem
Rather, 'under the current version of § 924(c), the government is shouldered with the burden of establishing some relationship between the firearm [the defendant] possessed and the predicate drug trafficking offense.' " Brown, 915 F.2d at 224 , quoting United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir.1989). 35 The evidence in the case at bar was quite sufficient, in our view, to support the conclusion that there was "some relationship" between Mr. Smith's drug trafficking, which involved the transportation of the cocaine in his car, and the presence of the loaded, cocked pistol at a place …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronald Joseph Puma, A/K/A Ronny Puma, Donnie K. Nichols, A/K/A Dead Weight and Dw, and Ernest Raymond Dodd, A/K/A Rd
United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Campos-Asencio, 822 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bernardo Bruce
See, e.g., United States v. Feliz-Cordero, 859 F.2d 250, 254 (2d Cir.1988) (“[S]ection 924(c) requires more than mere possession of a firearm.”); United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587, 597-98 (3rd Cir.1989) (“Had [Congress] intended the provision to encompass possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense it would have so provided.”); *1055 United, States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 177 (5th Cir.1989) (“[F]or cases that do not fit within the fortress analogy, something more than strategic proximity of drugs and firearms is necessary to honor Congress’ concerns.”);…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Leonard Wesley Shelton
Under this deferential standard, the indictment is sufficient “unless it is so defective that it does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Trollinger, 415 F.2d 527, 528 (5th Cir.1969) (per curiam)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Howard M. ROSENSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellant
v.
the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellant
87-1888.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 7, 1989.
Sam A. Lindsay, Chandra V. Fripp, Asst. City Attys., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Bruce A. Pauley, Lyon & Lyon, Rowlett, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Clark, Gee, Reavley, Politz, King, Johnson, Williams, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhe.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, REAVLEY, POLITZ, KING, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, and DUHE, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.