green
Positive treatment
Issue: Batson analysisWY ↗
Issue: Batson challengeMT ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
45.8 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2015–2016 ·
…the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial also applies to sentencing.
at p. 167
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Kidd
the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial applies to sentencing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Michael A. Armstrong
(2×)
Federal courts are nearly unanimous in holding that periods of incompetency are not attributable to the government.4 4 See, e.g., Smalls, 438 F.2d at 713 (concluding delay in bringing case was “at least in part justified” where defendant was undergoing treatment for “the last three of the five-and-a-half-year delay period”); United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that “hospitalization of a mentally ill prisoner sufficiently supports” delay of seven years between conviction and sentencing); United States v. Davis, 365 F.2d 251, 255 (6th Cir. 1966) (c…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Strickland v. Dallas Independent School District
United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir. 1996); see Sonnier v. Francis, 217 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. El Centro College
United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir. 1996); see Sonnier v. Francis, 217 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kenny Washington
(2×)
Although many cases implicating the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause arise in the context of a delay before trial, we have held that “[t]he constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial [also] applies to sentencing.” 2 United States v. Abour-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996); see United States v. Campbell, 531 F.2d 1333, 1335 (5th Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kenny Washington
Although many cases implicating the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause arise in the context of a delay 3 Case: 14-10623 Document: 00513206894 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 No. 14-10623 before trial, we have held that “[t]he constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial [also] applies to sentencing.” 2 United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996); see United States v. Campbell, 531 F.2d 1333, 1335 (5th Cir. 1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jensen
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Through this framework, the current version of § 4244 helps to meet several governmental interests that are distinct from questions of competency, namely, “the governmental interests in: (1) protecting men *806 tally ill prisoners who might be at substantial risk if placed in the general prison population; (2) ensuring the safety of other inmates; and (3) providing humanitarian treatment for mentally ill inmates.” Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d at 165.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hicks v. Wilkinson
(2×)
See United States v. Howard, 577 F.2d 269 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Abour-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Peters, 349 F.3d 842 (5th Cir.2003). *361 Likewise, when considering a Due Process violation resulting from delay, federal courts typically require some showing of prejudice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chaudhry
See, e.g., Corey v. United States, 375 U.S. 169 , 84 S.Ct. 298 , 11 L.Ed.2d 229 (1963); United States v. Ewing, 494 F.3d 607, 613-15 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167-68 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Donaghe, 924 F.2d 940, 942-43 (9th Cir.1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Flores
We have held that a Batson challenge must be made before the venire panel is dismissed. 4 United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ewing, John E.
The Court cautioned that a contrary result “might raise constitutional prob- lems of significant proportions.” Id. 12 No. 05-3409 Relying upon Corey, the only circuit court to address the question of jurisdiction over an appeal following a § 4244 provisional sentence concluded that jurisdiction exists.1 See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ewing
Relying upon Corey , the only circuit court to address the question of jurisdiction over an appeal following a § 4244 provisional sentence concluded that jurisdiction exists. 1 See United States v. *615 Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stevenson
See Martin, 56 M.J. at 107 (adopting a “substantial evidence” standard of review to determine the "reasonableness” of a finding of fact by members on the question of mental responsibility as announced in United States v. Barton, 992 F.2d 66, 68 (5th Cir.1993)); and, United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir.1996). . 31 October 2001. . 1 July 2003. .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wabol, Christopher
See 18 U.S.C. § 4244 (d); United States v. *532 Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 168 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People of Michigan v. Gregory M Rice
See also People v Hudson, 157 Ill 2d 401; 626 NE2d 161 (1993). 15 See United States v Biaggi, 909 F2d 662, 679 (CA 2, 1990); Government of Virgin Islands v Forte, 806 F2d 73, 76 (CA 3, 1986); Morning v Zapata Protein (USA), Inc, 128 F3d 213, 216 (CA 4, 1997); United States v Abou-Kassem, 78 F3d 161, 167 (CA 5, 1996); United States v Rodriguez, 917 F2d 1286, 1288 (CA 11, 1990); State v Cummings, 838 SW2d 4 (Mo App, 1992); Sorensen v State, 6 P3d 657, 662 (Wy, 2000); State v Harris, 157 Ariz 35, 36; 754 P2d 1139 (1988). 27 nonetheless underwent a Batson analysis for each of the discharged venire…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Knight
(2×)
See also People v. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d 401 , 193 Ill.Dec. 128 , 626 N.E.2d 161 (1993). [15] See United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 679 (C.A.2, 1990); Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte, 806 F.2d 73, 76 (C.A.3, 1986); Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc., 128 F.3d 213, 216 (C.A.4, 1997); United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (C.A.5, 1996); United States v. Rodriguez, 917 F.2d 1286, 1288 (C.A.11, 1990); State v. Cummings, 838 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.App., 1992); Sorensen v. State, 6 P.3d 657, 662 (Wy., 2000); State v. Harris, 157 Ariz. 35, 36 , 754 P.2d 1139 (1988). [16] In State v. Jacobs,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Moore
United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir.1996) (holding that Rule 704(b) does not violate due process); United States v. Austin, 981 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Blumberg, 961 F.2d 787 (8th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mooney v. State
See, e.g., State v. Ford, 306 Mont. 517 , 39 P.3d 108, 113 (2001); Sorensen v. State, 6 P.3d 657, 662 (Wyo.2000); Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc., 128 F.3d 213, 216 (4th Cir.1997); U.S. v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996); State v. Cummings, 838 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo.App.1992); U.S. v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 679 (2nd Cir.1990); State v. Harris, 157 Ariz. 35 , 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 (1988); Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Forte, 806 F.2d 73, 76 (3rd Cir.1986). 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gibson, Alonzo
The Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits have held the Sixth Amendment applicable to sentencing, see United States v. Thomas, 167 F.3d 299, 303-05 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996); Burkett v. Cunningham, 826 F.2d 1208, 1220 (3rd Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Levi
United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Spicer
After diagnosing Spicer with post-traumatic stress disorder, Dr. Womack went on to conclude that “[a]t the time of the alleged offenses, [Spicer] did not suffer from a mental disease or defect which would render him unable to No. 01-60950 -3- appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of his behavior.” See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165-66 (5th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[a] person is legally insane if as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts”) (internal brackets, quotation m…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Martin
Specifically, the Fifth Circuit has determined that an appellate court “should reject the jury verdict [on insanity] ... only if no reasonable trier of fact could have failed to find that the defendant’s criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence.” See United States v. Barton, 992 F.2d 66, 68 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 818 , 117 S.Ct. 70 , 136 L.Ed.2d 30 (1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sorensen v. State
U.S. v. Romero-Reyna, 867 F.2d 834, 837 (5th Cir.1989) ("We hold that to be timely, the Batson objection must be made before the venire is dismissed and before the trial commences."); U.S. v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 679 (2nd Cir.1990) (acknowledging the "need to resolve a Batson claim at the point where prompt corrective action can be taken"); U.S. v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996); U.S. v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 380, 835 (5th Cir.1998); U.S. v. Erwin, 798 F.2d 656, 667 (5th Cir.1986); State v. Wilson, 117 NM. 11, 868 P.2d 656, 661 (App.1998) (collecting cases); People v. Mendoza, 876 P…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Yelverton, Willie L.
See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 167 F.3d 299, 303 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rothrock, 20 F.3d 709, 711-12 (7lh Cir.1994); United States v. Martinez, 837 F.2d 861, 866-67 (9th Cir. 1988); Perez v. Sullivan, 793 F.2d 249, 252-54 (10th Cir.1986); United States v. Campisi, 583 F.2d 692, 694 (3d Cir. 1978). 6 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dewain Moses
By contrast, the predicate for § 4244 is any "mental disease or defect for the treatment of which, [the defendant] is in need of custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility.” The Fifth Circuit has suggested three possible reasons for postponing sentencing under § 4244: "(1) protecting mentally ill prisoners who might be at substantial risk if placed in the general prison population; (2) ensuring the safety of other inmates; and (3) providing humanitarian treatment for mentally ill inmates." United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hensley
Entry; see United States v. Abou–Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996) (suggesting that defendants who request evaluations of their mental state may be, at least partially, responsible for the delay).
cited
Cited "see"
Rosa Navarrete-Lopez v. William Barr, U. S. Atty G
See generally United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Guy Richards v. Lufkin Industries, L.L.C.
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Silicani
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir. 1996) (§ 4244 furthers “the governmental interests in (1) protecting mentally ill prisoners who might be at substantial risk if placed in the general prison population; (2) ensuring the safety of other inmates; and (3) providing humanitarian treatment for mentally ill inmates”); United States v. Jensen, 639 F.3d 802, 805 (8th Cir. 2011) (same); Daniel A. Krauss & Alan M.
cited
Cited "see"
Crystal Keith v. Deanne Schaub
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Austin, 981 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Blumberg, 961 F.2d 787 (8th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eugene Thompson
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996). 23 No. 12-31203 stricken juror’s demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the characteristic that the prosecutor attributed to it.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Eugene Thompson
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996). .
cited
Cited "see"
Akpojiyovwi v. Gonzales
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Sonnier v. Francis
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Manzano
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Trowbridge v. Internal Revenue Svc
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Duncan
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.) (seven year delay between conviction and sentencing not constitutional violation), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 818 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sanchez.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d at 165 .
cited
Cited "see"
Texas Ex Rel. Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Walker
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Texas v. Walker
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gigante
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 70 , 136 L.Ed.2d 30 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. Excel Corp.
See United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 70 , 136 L.Ed.2d 30 (1996); United States v. Mas-eratti, 1 F.3d 330 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 1096 , 127 L.Ed.2d 409 (1994); United States v. Romero-Reyna, 867 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1084 , 110 S.Ct. 1818 , 108 L.Ed.2d 948 (1990). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Martinez-Brilia
A defendant making a “Baston challenge” to a prosecutor’s peremptory strike must do so “before the venire has been dismissed.” United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1428 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carman Deck v. Richard Jennings
Compare Betterman, 136 S. Ct. at 1618 (making clear that “[t]he Sixth Amendment speedy[-]trial right . . . does not extend beyond conviction”), with United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996) (applying the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), factors to a speedy-sentencing claim), and United States v. Sanders, 452 F.3d 572, 580 (6th Cir. 2006) (adopting a due-process framework).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Larry K. Danks v. Cecil Davis, Superintendent
See also United States v. Abov-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996) (period of incompetency attributable to defendant, not the state); United States v. Vasquez, 918 F.2d 329, 338 (2d Cir.1990) (period of evaluating defendant’s incompetency not attributable to the state); United States v. Jackson, 542 F.2d 403, 407 (7th Cir.1976) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Danks, Larry v. Davis, Cecil
See also United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1996) (period of incompetency attributable to defendant, not the state); United States v. Vasquez, 918 F.2d 329, 338 (2d Cir. 1990) (period of evalu- ating defendant’s incompetency not attributable to the state); United States v. Jackson, 542 F.2d 403, 407 (7th Cir. 1976) (same).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Peters
See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); see also United States v. Abou-Kassem, 78 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Abou-Kassem
v.
Abou-Kassem
94-11046.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 8, 1995.
Unpublished
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 94-11046
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
SOLAH KASSEM ABOU-KASSEM,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:87 CR 14 E)
______________________________________________________
August 4, 1995
Before DAVIS, JONES, Circuit Judges, and HINOJOSA1, District Judge.
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 94-11046
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
SOLAH KASSEM ABOU-KASSEM,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:87 CR 14 E)
______________________________________________________
August 4, 1995
Before DAVIS, JONES, Circuit Judges, and HINOJOSA1, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:2
Abou-Kassem appeals the dismissal of his § 2255 petition. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
In November 1987, a jury convicted Abou-Kassem of two counts of hostage taking, two counts of attempted air piracy, one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, and four counts of using a firearm in a crime of violence. Before trial, the district court granted Abou-Kassem's request for a competency
1 District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 2 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. hearing and, following the hearing, declared him mentally competent to stand trial.
Before sentencing, Abou-Kassem requested another hearing to assess his mental condition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4244 and 4257. The district court granted his request and determined that Abou- Kassem suffered from a mental condition requiring treatment. Pursuant to § 4244, the district court committed him to a federal mental facility under a provisional sentence of life plus forty years. Abou-Kassem then filed a § 2255 petition challenging his provisional sentence. He filed the instant appeal when the district court denied his petition. After Abou-Kassem filed his notice of appeal, however, the district court determined that he was competent to be sentenced and imposed a final sentence. Abou- Kassem subsequently filed a direct appeal from his final sentence.
Abou-Kassem's provisional sentence was terminated when the district court issued its final sentence. Because of the termination of his provisional sentence, we can no longer grant him the relief he seeks in his § 2255 petition. His appeal of the district court's denial of his § 2255 petition is therefore moot. See In re Sullivan Cent. Plaza, I, Ltd., 914 F.2d 731, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1990)("The mootness doctrine is grounded primarily and originally in the appellate court's inability to fashion relief."). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
[*2]