green
Positive treatment
39.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 44 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Austin Carey
“To determine the elements of a crime, ‘the focus of our inquiry is the intent of Congress.’ We ‘look to the statute’s language, structure, subject matter, context, and history—factors that typically help courts determine a statute’s objectives and thereby illuminate its text.’” Id. (citation omitted) (first quoting United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1995); and then quoting Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228 (1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Austin Carey
“To determine the elements of a crime, ‘the focus of our inquiry is the intent of Congress.’ We ‘look to the statute’s language, structure, subject matter, context, and history—factors that typically help courts determine a statute’s objectives and thereby illuminate its text.’” Id. (citation omitted) (first quoting United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1995); and then quoting Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228 (1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brian Charette
To determine the elements of a crime, “the focus of our inquiry is the intent of Congress.” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gustavo Dominguez
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The legislative history explains that Congress intended to “expand the scope of activities proscribed by federal law to reach the conduct of those participating in such operations as the Mariel boatlift.” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Garcia-Cordero, 610 F.3d 613, 619 (11th Cir. 2010) (Korman, J., concurring) (noting that Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(2) to punish the type of conduct at issue in the Mariel “Freedom Flotilla” cases).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gustavo Dominguez
(12×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The legislative history explains that Congress intended to “expand the scope of activities proscribed by federal law to reach the conduct of those participating in such operations as the Mariel boatlift.” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Garcia-Cordero, 610 F.3d 613, 619 (11th Cir. 2010) (Korman, J., concurring) (noting that Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(2) to punish the type of conduct at issue in the Mariel “Freedom Flotilla” cases).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gustavo Dominguez
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The legislative history explains that Congress intended to “expand the scope of activities proscribed by federal law to reach the conduct of those participating in such operations as the Mariel boatlift.” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Garcia-Cordero, 610 F.3d 613, 619 (11th Cir. 2010) (Korman, J., concurring) (noting that Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(2) to punish the type of conduct at issue in the Mariel “Freedom Flotilla” cases).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bibbins
United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Humanitarian Law v. Mukasey
Thus, we must “construe [a criminal] statute in light of the fundamental principle that a person is not criminally responsible unless ‘an evil-meaning mind’ accompanies ‘an evil-doing hand.’ ” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251 (1952)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey
Thus, we must “construe [a criminal] statute in light of the fundamental principle that a person is not criminally responsible unless ‘an evil-meaning mind’ accompanies ‘an evildoing hand.’” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251 , 72 S.Ct. 240 , 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey
Thus, we must “construe [a criminal] statute in light of the fundamental principle that a person is not criminally responsible unless ‘an evil-meaning mind’ accompanies ‘an evil-doing hand.’ ” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251 (1952)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey
Thus, we must “construe [a criminal] statute in light of the fundamental principle that a person is not criminally responsible unless ‘an *1131 evil-meaning mind’ accompanies ‘an evildoing hand.’ ” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251 , 72 S.Ct. 240 , 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. De Jesus-Batres
United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 894-95 (9th Cir.1995) and United States v. Barajas-Montiel, 185 F.3d 947, 951-53 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chang Guo You, United States of America v. Mi Ae Yim, AKA Mi Ae Pigman
Similarly, the district court in United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 894 (9th Cir.1995), instructed the jury that the defendant had to have knowledge that the alien was not lawfully in the United States *966 but failed to instruct the jury that any criminal intent be shown.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Justice
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil. 342 U.S. at 250 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 11 Morissette and its progeny teach us that we are to “construe [a criminal] statute in light of the fundamental principle that a person is not criminally responsible unless ‘an evil-meaning mind’ accompanies ‘an evil-doing hand.’ ” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Morissette, 342 U.S. at 251 , 72 S.Ct. 240 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Humanitarian Law Project Ralph Fertig Ilankai Thamil Sangam Tamils of Northern California Tamil Welfare and Human Rights Committee Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America World Tamil Coordinating Committee Nagalingam Jeyalingam v. United States Department of Justice United States Department of State John Ashcroft, Attorney General Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, Humanitarian Law Project Ralph Fertig Ilankai Thamil Sangam Tamils of Northern California Tamil Welfare & Human Rights Committee Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America World Tamil Coordinating Committee Nagalingam Jeyalingam v. United States Department of Justice United States Department of State John Ashcroft, Attorney General Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State
(3×)
It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil. 342 U.S. at 250 , 72 S.Ct. 240 . 11 55 Morissette and its progeny teach us that we are to "construe [a criminal] statute in light of the fundamental principle that a person is not criminally responsible unless `an evil-meaning mind' accompanies `an evil-doing hand.'" United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Morissette, 342 U.S. at 251 , 72 S.Ct. 240 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mapalo
See, e.g., United States v. Barajas-Montiel, 185 F.3d 947, 951 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 , 121 S.Ct. 123 , 148 L.Ed.2d 77 (2000); United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Ramirez-Lopez
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Although we have held that “criminal offenses requiring no mens rea have a generally disfavored status,” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), we have found that section 1324 does have a mens rea requirement, namely that the alleged smuggler intended to violate the immigration laws.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alejandro Matus-Leva
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
That argument lacks merit. 3 As demonstrated by our analysis in United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 894 (9th Cir.1995), section 1324 does have a *1219 mens rea requirement, namely that the alleged smuggler intend to violate the immigration laws.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Yuami Yoshida, AKA Yuami Isogai
We have held that “ ‘to convict a person of violating section 1324(a)(1)(A), the government must show that the defendant acted with criminal intent’, i.e., the intent to violate United States immigration laws.” United States v. Barajas-Montiel, 185 F.3d 947, 951 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Flavio David Mendoza
In determining the elements the government must prove to establish a violation of § 32(a)(6), “the focus of our inquiry is the intent of Congress.” United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Amelia Barajas-Montiel
(2×)
United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bash
Finally, criminal offenses with no requirement of a mental element have a "generally disfavored status." E.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 426 , 105 S.Ct. 2084, 2088 , 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 438 , 98 S.Ct. 2864, 2874 , 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978)); United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890-91 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bash
Ed. 2d 854 (1978)); United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890-91 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pechan
See Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 280-81 , 113 S.Ct. at 2080 -81 (citing [Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 271 , 109 S.Ct. 2419, 2424 , 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) ] (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment)); [United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir.1995) ].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ronald L. Bailie, D/B/A Bailie School of Broadcast, Terri Bailie, Nada B. Bailie, D/B/A Bailie School of Broadcast
Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985); United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Garcia-Cordero
(2×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887 , 891 (9th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Johal
(3×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1995).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Joga Singh Johal
(3×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Joga Singh Johal
(3×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Johal
(3×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Cabaccang, United States of America v. Richard T. Cabaccang, United States of America v. Roy Toves Cabaccang
(2×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis
(2×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis
(2×)
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir. 1995). 98 The majority states that "there can be little doubt that Khamis knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the aliens were not lawfully in the United States." Maj. op. at 11892.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pitawanakwat
See In the Matter of Extradition of Smyth, 61 F.3d 711, 714 (9th Cir.1995), amended 73 F.3d 887 (9th Cir.1995), cert denied 518 U.S. 1022 , 116 S.Ct. 2558 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996) (listing decisions).
cited
Cited "see"
99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 200, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 281 Emilio Valdez Mainero, A/K/A Ricardo Gonzalez Leon A/K/A Ricardo Emilio Valdez-Mainero A/K/A Emilio Ricardo Valdez v. Stephen S. Gregg, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, A/K/A El Lobo 88 v. Stephen S. Gregg, United States Marshal for the Southern District of California
See In re Requested Extradition of Smyth, 61 F.3d 711, 720-21 (9th Cir.), amended by 73 F.3d 887 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1022 , 116 S.Ct. 2558 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Mainero v. Gregg
See In re Requested Extradition of Smyth, 61 F.3d 711, 720-21 (9th Cir.), amended by 73 F.3d 887 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1022 , 116 S.Ct. 2558 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roger J. Raether
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 894-95 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Parmelee, 42 F.3d 387, 391, 393 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 63 (1995); United States v. Williams, 935 F.2d 1531, 1536 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1101 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roger J. Raether Russell Hawkins
See United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 894-95 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Parmelee, 42 F.3d 387, 391, 393 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 63 , 133 L.Ed.2d 25 (1995); United States v. Williams, 935 F.2d 1531, 1536 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1101 , 112 S.Ct. 1189 , 117 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Torres-Flores
(2×)
In addition to the elements specifically listed in the statutory text, we have-held that the felony offense contains an implied specific intent element, namely that defendant have acted with intent to “violate, immigration laws.” United States v. Barajas-Montiel, 185 F.3d 947, 952-53 (9th Cir.1999); see also United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887 , 894 n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that when criminal intent is an- implied element of a crime it “is no less an element of the offense here than if it had been expressly provided for in the statute”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Torres-Flores
In addition to the elements specifically listed in the statutory text, we have held that the felony offense contains an implied specific intent element, namely that defendant have acted with intent to “violate immigration laws.” United States v. Barajas-Montiel, 185 F.3d 947, 952-53 (9th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887 , 894 n.4 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that when criminal intent is an implied element of a crime it “is no less an ele- ment of the offense here than if it had been expressly pro- vided for in the statute”). [2] Defendant claims that the district ju…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jeffrey H. Feingold
See, e.g., United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 894-95 (9th Cir.1995) (reversing a conviction where the jury instructions failed to require a finding of intent).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Feingold
See, e.g., United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 894-95 (9th Cir. 1995) (reversing a conviction where the jury instructions failed to require a finding of intent).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Armenta-Fiscal
See also United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887, 890-93 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that “criminal intent,” not mere knowledge of alien’s unlawful status, must be proven to establish conviction for bringing aliens into the United States at a location other than a designated port of entry).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jose Pasillas-Gaytan
See also United States v. Nguyen, 73 F.3d 887 , 891 n. 1 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that public welfare offenses generally are ones “where the penalty is relatively small, [and] where conviction does not gravely besmirch” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 24 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of James Joseph SMYTH UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James Joseph SMYTH, Defendant-Appellee
v.
James Joseph SMYTH, Defendant-Appellee
94-10495.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 11, 1995.
Sneed, Schroeder, Ferguson.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
ORDER
The opinion is amended as follows: change the third sentence of the first paragraph under the heading “The Supplementary Extradition Treaty” at 61 F.3d 711, at 713 to read: .
“The Provisional Irish Republican Army (“IRA”) of which Smyth reputedly is a member ...”