United States v. Sherley A. Sanders, 924 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Sherley A. Sanders, 924 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he guidelines d not limit the court to elements of the charged offense as possible grounds for departure.”
30 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Alex Barragan-Espinoza (ca9, 2003-12-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Alex Barragan-Espinoza
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he guidelines d not limit the court to elements of the charged offense as possible grounds for departure.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Teyer
S.D.N.Y. · 2004 · confidence medium
See United States v. Davis, 176 F.3d 489 , 1999 WL 236561 , at *2 (10th Cir.1993) (table); United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 804-05 (9th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Ray Blake
10th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See United States v. Mrazek, 998 F.2d 453, 455 (7th Cir.1993) (“‘[T]he underlying offense’ must be the crime during which, by using the gun, the defendant violated § 924(c).”); United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001, 1011 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1280 (5th Cir.1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Maynard Charles Campbell, Jr.
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 802-803 (9th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Willie Roberts, Jr., United States of America v. Alvin Charles Johnson
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 804 (9th Cir.1991). 31 Johnson's argument fails to distinguish between a situation where, as here, the district court considers the weapon for purposes of setting a sentence within the range, and a situation where the court considers a dismissed charge for purposes of departing from the guideline range.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. \Lnu\" Omar A/K/A Fernandez (2×)
unknown court · 1994 · confidence medium
In contrast, see United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir.1991) (enhancement for use of multiple weapons in drug offense warranted where a single defendant’s “arsenal of 18 firearms, some fully automatic, elevated the factor of weapon possession in this case to an extraordinary level.”) Similarly, neither Fernandez’ behavior toward the assistant manager nor the overall conduct of the robbery were outside the range of typical robbery cases the Commission addressed through section 2B3.1 of the guidelines.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Eberto Gutierrez
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Paul Y.B. Hahn
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Crispin Torres, Jr.
9th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 804 (9th Cir 1991) (holding that a district court did not err at sentencing by considering “aspects of [the defendant’s] offense that were not specified in the information to which he pled guilty.”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Hoang Van Tran, and Vicheth Som
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001, 1011 (11th Cir.1992).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Davis
10th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 804-05 (9th Cir. 1991) (number of firearms).
discussed Cited "see" UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darres CHIN-SUNG PARK, Defendant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir.1991) (affirming sentence where underlying offense for firearm-based sentencing enhancement differed from underlying offense of § 924(c) firearm count).
cited Cited "see" United States v. David M. Mrazek
7th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001, 1011 (11th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Henry Van Buren (2×)
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
Breach of Plea Agreement 9 Generally, a claim that a plea agreement has been breached cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, unless the record reveals that "plain error has occurred and an injustice might otherwise result." United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir.1991); see United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991) (declining to consider alleged breach of plea agreement because appellate court will review issue not raised below only when "the question is a purely legal one and the record has been fully developed prior to appeal").
cited Cited "see" United States v. John Michael Martin
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Richard I. Gilmore
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991) 3 We deny the government's request for costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Donald James Penrod
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991) (issue not considered if not raised below); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 915 F.2d 424, 430 (9th Cir.1990) (issues must be raised in opening brief on appeal), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 66 (1991).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jerald Patrick Jones
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991). 6 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Mark Lemel Brown
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Rodney Burl Smith (2×)
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985); see United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991).
cited Cited "see" United States v. William Scott MacDonald
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991). 14 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Timothy King
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir.1991); Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 814 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882 (1986). 9 Without passing on the issue of whether King's estoppel contention presents a legal or factual question, we are convinced that the factual record on this contention has not been sufficiently developed for appellate review.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Cesar Zamora (2×)
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Nakagawa, 924 F.2d 800 (9th Cir.1991) (special risk caused by possession of 18 firearms, some fully automatic, during drug offense not adequately reflected by 18 U.S.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Sherley A. SANDERS, Appellant
90-1726.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 5, 1991.
924 F.2d 800
James Delworth, Federal Public Defender, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant., James Martin, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Gibson, Bowman, Hanson.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Sherley A. Sanders appeals from the sentence imposed upon her after revocation of her probation. She was sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment, and the sentence was entered following an earlier promise of the district court that on any revocation of-probation she would be “gone for three years.” The district court did not apply the Sentencing Guidelines.

This court has recently held in United States v. Von Washington, 915 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir.1990) that when probation is revoked, the defendant must be sentenced in accord with the Guidelines, as required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(b) and 3565(a) (1988). See also United States v. Smith, 907 F.2d 133 (11th Cir.1990).

Accordingly, we remand to the district court for resentencing.