green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
23.6 score
“we think it reasonable to require of defendants seeking a self-defense instruc- tion that they first proffer evidence demonstrating a lack of reasonable alternatives to committing the crime.”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Harris
we think it reasonable to require of defendants seeking a self-defense instruc- tion that they first proffer evidence demonstrating a lack of reasonable alternatives to committing the crime.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gerald Fonville
See id. at 77-79 ; see also United States v. Sahakian, 453 F.3d 905, 910 (7th Cir.2006) (“To hold that [defendant] was faced with an imminent threat based on a rumor he heard from some unknown and unidentified individual would essentially require that each and every inmate who has allegedly received a vague unsubstantiated threat be allowed to arm himself, threatening the safety of guards as well as other prisoners; this would be less than reasonable.”) (citation omitted); United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 15-16 (4th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (concluding that, where an inmate claimed that he…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Boyd
The application note goes further to explain that this occurs when the defendant is asserting and preserving issues “that do not relate to factual guilt (e.g., to make a constitutional challenge to a statute or to challenge the applicability of a statute to his conduct).” Id.) see United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that a defendant “could obtain a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, even after putting the government through its burden of proving its case at trial, as long as [the defendant] went to trial to preserve issues unrelated to factual …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Boney
United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cox
United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Byers v. Commonwealth
See Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326 ; United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir.1996) (presented with the question of whether justification is a defense to a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. § 13 (assimilating Virginia Code § 53.1-203(4)), which makes it a felony for a prisoner to "[m]ake, procure, secrete or have in his possession a knife, instrument, tool or other thing not authorized by the superintendent or sheriff which is capable of causing death or bodily injury”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anderson
United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jenkins
AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________________ 12 See United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 936 (4th Cir. 1990). 13 USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)). 14 See United States v. Harris, 882 F.2d 902, 907 (4th Cir. 1989). 15 See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3260 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-9448). 5
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hunt
United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3260 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-9448).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gray
United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Homer I. Gray, A/K/A Sonny, United States of America v. Paul E. Frazier, United States of America v. Robin L. Brumbaugh, United States of America v. Mark W. Dabbs, United States of America v. Mark T. McNulty
United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nicholas Young
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996) (concluding there was no clear error where the district court “believed [the defendant’s] affirmative defense was meritless and that his attempt to minimize his culpability was not an acceptance of responsibility”). 9 defendant’s base offense level and (2) elevates his criminal history to Category VI if his offense “is a felony that involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism[.]” USSG § 3A1.4.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Zonta Ellison
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996) (holding district court did not clearly err in denying adjustment because defendant’s meritless affirmative defense was “attempt to minimize *268 his culpability”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hammond
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Falesbork, 5 F.3d 715, 721-22 (4th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996) (requiring defendants seeking a self-defense instruction to provide “evidence demonstrating a lack of reasonable legal alternatives to committing the crime”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lindsay
See United States v. Holt , 79 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Holeston
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Weaver
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996) (this Court reviews a district court's decision to deny an accep- tance of responsibility adjustment for clear error).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Mason
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mardena Thomas
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arlis Hicks
(2×)
Crittendon, 883 F.2d at 330 ; see United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Yeaman
See United States v. Neadle, 72 F.3d 1104, 1114-15 (3d Cir. 1996) (Becker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("[T]he plain meaning of`resulted from' connotes causation."), opinion amended by 79 F.3d 14 (3d Cir. 1996); United States v. Evans, 155 F.3d 245, 253 (3d Cir. 1998) ("[T]he actual loss determination must be predicated on the harm caused by [defendant's] offenses.").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America in No. 98-1146 v. David Rex Yeaman in No. 98-1102
See United States v. Neadle, 72 F.3d 1104, 1114-15 (3d Cir.1996) (Becker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[T]he plain meaning of ‘resulted from’ connotes causation.”), opinion amended by 79 F.3d 14 (3d Cir.1996); United States v. Evans, 155 F.3d 245, 253 (3d Cir.1998) (“[T]he actual loss determination must be predicated on the harm caused by [defendant’s] offenses.”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mendoza
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Coy
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, #6D 6D6D# U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3260 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-9448).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Terry
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3260 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-9448).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Littlejohn
See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3260 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-9448).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kise
United States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254, 261 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1007 (2003); see also United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Kise, A/K/A Bill
(2×)
United States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254, 261 (4th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1178 , 123 S.Ct. 1007 , 154 L.Ed.2d 925 (2003); see also United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Williams
Id.; see also United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lawrence NEADLE, Jr., Appellant
v.
Lawrence NEADLE, Jr., Appellant
94-7417.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 25, 1996.
Becker, Nygaard, Roth.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed on December 19, 1995, 72 F.3d 1104 be amended as follows:
1. Please delete the second paragraph in Part LA of Judge Becker’s concurring and dissenting opinion, including footnote 1.
2. At the end of the third sentence in the first paragraph of Part I.A.1 of Judge Becker’s concurring and dissenting opinion (which reads “See USSG § 2F1.1(b).”), please add the following footnote: “Except where noted, my discussion is based on the 1988 Guidelines.”/s/ Edward R. Becker EDWARD R. BECKER, Circuit Judge