United States v. Derrick Cornelius Gayle, Claude Bertram Hester, 967 F.2d 488 (11th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Derrick Cornelius Gayle, Claude Bertram Hester, 967 F.2d 488 (11th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Daniel J. Fern (ca11, 1998-09-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Daniel J. Fern
11th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Sufficiency of the Indictment “A criminal conviction will not be upheld if the indictment upon which it is *1325 based does not set forth the essential elements of the offense.” United States v. Gayle, 967 F.2d 488, 485 (11th Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 967 , 118 S.Ct. 1402 , 122 L.Ed.2d775 (1993).
cited Cited "see" Ivory Lee Robinson v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gayle, 967 F.2d 488 (11th Cir. 1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Derrick Cornelius GAYLE, Claude Bertram Hester, Defendants-Appellants
90-7500.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 29, 1992.
967 F.2d 488
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 17200
1992 WL 161185
L. Scott Johnson, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for Gayle., Thomas M. Goggans, Montgomery, Ala., for Hester., Louis V. Franklin, Sr., U.S. Atty’s Office, Montgomery, Ala., for U.S.
Kravitch, Morgan, Johnson.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
[*489] PER CURIAM:

The En Banc Court for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the indictments of defendants Gayle and Hester as sufficient under 18 U.S.C. § 912 and remanded this case to the original panel for resolution of the remaining issues not addressed in this panel’s initial opinion. [1] We find that the remaining issues are either moot, because both defendants have served their full terms, or do not merit further discussion. We therefore affirm the section 912 convictions and the district court’s imposition of sentences.

1

. The remaining issues argued in the original appeal were:

(1) Whether the district court erred in finding that appellants’ impersonation was for the purpose of conducting an unlawful detention?

(2) Whether a prior conviction which results in the imposition of a fine, qualifies as a “prior sentence” under the United States Sentencing Guidelines?

(3) Whether the district court displayed an unawareness that a downward departure was an option at sentencing?

(4) Whether U.S.S.G. § 3D 1.5 was applicable to the calculation of defendant’s sentence?

(5) Whether the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy was violated?

(6) Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty as to count one of the indictment?

(7) Whether defendant Gayle should have been considered a minimal participant?