United States v. Gail Huff, 72 F.3d 130 (6th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Gail Huff, 72 F.3d 130 (6th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
62 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Dennis Hodge (ca6, 2015-10-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dennis Hodge
6th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
See United States v. Henderson, 17 Fed.Appx. 362, 366-67 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477, 1481-85 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Pitts, 72 F.3d 130, at *3 (6th Cir.1995) (unpublished table opinion) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Garcia, 72 F.3d 130 .
discussed Cited "see" Creditors v. Lile
N.D. Ohio · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Prof'l Realty Invs., Inc., 72 F.3d 130 (Table), 1995 WL 717021 , at *11 n.4 (6th Cir. 1995) (appellate court may exercise its discretion to consider an issue on appeal that is thoroughly argued in the briefs even if not identified in the statement of issues); cf. In re Teal , No. 4:14-CV-15, 2015 WL 1206802 , at *2 (E.D.
discussed Cited "see" Flagg v. Staples the Office Superstore East, Inc.
N.D. Ohio · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wolfe , *2 (S.D.Ohio,2009) (“Plaintiff alleged she was ‘falsely imprisoned Plaintiff for four hours without food or water while they interrogated, intimidated, harassed and embarrassed her.’ These allegations are insufficient to state a claim for IIED under Ohio law.”) Mullholand v. Harris Corp., 72 F.3d 130 (Table), 1995 WL 730466, *3 (6th Cir.1995), (a co-worker allegedly sexually harassed plaintiff, spread rumors about her, and “pushed” the plaintiff “against her locker and slammed its doors against her.” In affirming summary judgment for defendant the Sixth Circuit held…
discussed Cited "see" Garner v. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
6th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaton-El 72 F.3d 130 , 1995 WL 723195, at *1 (“Seaton-El [the sanctioned plaintiff] attempted to meet his burden of showing that he could not pay the costs that were demanded by filing a timely response to the defendants’ motion, in which he repeatedly asserted that he could not afford to pay the award.”) (emphasis added); Colton, 986 F.2d 1421 , 1993 WL 29663, at *4 (“Although ability to pay must be considered by a district court ... [,] inability to pay should be treated like an affirmative defense, with the burden upon the party being sanctioned to come forward with evidence of…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Gail Huff
95-5509.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Dec 6, 1995.
72 F.3d 130
Published

72 F.3d 130
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gail HUFF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-5509.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 1995.

Before: BROWN, NELSON and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Gail Huff appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence following her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846. The district court sentenced Huff to 46 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release, ordered her to serve 150 hours of community service and imposed a $50 special assessment. The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

2

In this timely appeal, Huff argues that the district court improperly denied her a downward adjustment in her Sentencing Guideline range for being a minimal or minor participant pursuant to USSG Sec. 3B1.2.

3

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Huff the downward adjustment. Huff has not met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that mitigating factors exist which warrant a reduction. United States v. Moss, 9 F.3d 543, 554 (6th Cir.1992), and the district court did not commit clear error in determining that Huff did not have a minimal or minor role in the offense. Id. Although Huff asserts that she only acted as a courier in the drug distribution scheme, this fact alone does not entitle her to a downward adjustment for being a minimal or minor participant. United States v. Logan, 49 F.3d 352, 360-61 (8th Cir.1995). Nor is she entitled to a reduction merely because she was less culpable in the offense than her co-conspirators. Id.

4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.