green
Positive treatment
13.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shannon Dawson
Indeed, the defendant bears the burden of justifying a new trial.’” United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1151 (11th Cir.2006) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1015-16 (11th Cir.2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ruben Campa, A.K.A. John Doe 3, A.K.A. Vicky, A.K.A. Camilo, A.K.A. Oscar, Rene Gonzalez, A.K.A. Iselin, A.K.A. Castor, Gerardo Hernandez, A.K.A. Giro, A.K.A. Manuel Viramontez, A.K.A. John Doe 1, A.K.A. Manuel Viramontes, Luis Medina, A.K.A. Oso, A.K.A. Johnny, A.K.A. Allan, A.K.A. John Doe 2, Antonio Guerrero, A.K.A. Rolando Gonzalez-Diaz, A.K.A. Lorient, United States of America v. Gerardo Hernandez, A.K.A. Giro, A.K.A. Manuel Viramontez, A.K.A. John Doe 1, A.K.A. Manuel Viramontes, Luis Medina, A.K.A. Oso, A.K.A. Johnny, A.K.A. Allan, A.K.A. John Doe 2, Rene Gonzalez, A.K.A. Iselin, A.K.A. Castor, Antonio Guerrero, A.K.A. Rolando Gonzalez-Diaz, A.K.A. Lorient, Ruben Campa, A.K.A. John Doe 3, A.K.A. Vicky, A.K.A. Camilo, A.K.A. Oscar
(2×)
We apply the current version of Rule 33, even though the defendants' new trial motions were filed before the 2002 amendments were effective. 265 See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1015 (11th Cir.2000) (per curiam) vacated in part on other grounds, 242 F.3d 995, 996 (2001) (per curiam). 266 Devila, 216 F.3d at 1015-16 (quotations and citations omitted). 267 United States v. Beasley, 582 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam). 268 Id. at 339 ; United States v. Williams, 613 F.2d 573, 575 (5th Cir.1980) (stating that a motion for new trial is appropriate if the newly…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Campa
(2×)
P. 33; United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1015 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) vacated in part on other grounds, 242 F.3d 995, 996 (2001) (per curiam). 266 Devila, 216 F.3d at 1015-16 (quotations and citations omitted). 267 United States v. Beasley, 582 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam). 268 Id. at 339 ; United States v. Williams, 613 F.2d 573, 575 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that a motion for new trial is appropriate if the newly discovered evidence “afford[ed] reasonable 61 The defendants are not entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence under Rule 33(b)(1)…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Campa
(2×)
See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1015 (11th Cir.2000) (per curiam) vacated in part on other grounds, 242 F.3d 995, 996 (2001) (per curiam). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Campa
See United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1013, 1017 (11th Cir.2000) (per curiam), vacated in part on other grounds, 242 F.3d 995, 996 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Campa
See United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1013, 1017 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), vacated in part on other grounds, 242 F.3d 995, 996 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pedro Luis Christopher Tinoco
This, in turn, led us to the conclusion that it was misleading to view the jurisdictional requirement as a necessary element of the offense, rather than as “a diplomatic requisite illustrating the international partnership that ensures the rule of law on the high seas.” Id.; see also United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1017 (11th Cir.2000) (per curiam), vacated in part on other grounds, 242 F.3d 995 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 103 , 151 L.Ed.2d 62 (2001) (noting that the jurisdictional requirement that a foreign nation consent to or waive objection to United States …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Greer
(2×)
No. 99-530, at 16 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5986, 6001 ("[O]nly the flag nation of a vessel should have a right to question whether the Coast Guard has boarded that vessel with the required consent" because the "international law of jurisdiction is an issue between sovereign nations."); see also United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009 , 1017 (11th Cir.2000) (per curiam), aff'g United States v. Preciado, No. 96-0534 (S.D.Fla.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Greer
(2×)
NO. 99-530, at 16 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5986, 6001 ("[O]nly the flag nation of a vessel should have a right to question whether the Coast Guard has boarded that vessel with the required consent" because the "international law of jurisdiction is an issue between sovereign nations."); see also United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009, 1017 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), aff'g United States v. Preciado, No. 96-0534 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Greer
(2×)
No. 99-530, at 16 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5986, 6001 (“[O]nly the flag nation of a vessel should have a right to question whether the Coast Guard has boarded that vessel with the required consent” because the “international law of jurisdiction is an issue between sovereign nations.”); see also United States v. Devila, 216 F.3d 1009 , 1017 (11th Cir.2000) (per curiam), aff'g United States v. Preciado, No. 96-0534 (S.D.Fla.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Devila
v.
Devila
98-4374.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jun 27, 2000.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bladimir DEVILA, Avery Lightborne, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 98-4374.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 20, 2001. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 96-00534-CR-SM); Stanley Marcus, Judge. Before HILL, COX and MESKILL*, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
The Court DISMISSES the appeal as to Appellant Rauldino Rivera upon the suggestion of death filed by his counsel. The Court VACATES the judgment of conviction below as to Appellant Rivera and REMANDS Appellant Rivera's case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the indictment against him. See U.S. v. Schumann, 861 F.2d 1234 (11th Cir.1988). On its own motion, the Court VACATES its June 27, 2000, opinion as to Appellant Rivera. The appeals of the remaining Appellants shall be unaffected by this order.
* The Honorable Thomas J. Meskill, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.