United States v. G.L.T., 141 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. G.L.T., 141 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Christopher Williams (ca8, 2020-09-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Christopher Williams
8th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Washburn, 444 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness for plain error where defendant did not object to an additional superseding indictment before retrial); United States v. Furnish, 141 F.3d 1171, 1171 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (table opinion, text at 1998 WL 184444 ), citing United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1093 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (holding that “contemporaneous objection was necessary to preserve” vindictiveness claim).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Terry Swant
8th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Swant, 141 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1998) (unpublished table decision).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
G.L.T.
97-4257.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 9, 1998.
141 F.3d 1171
Unpublished

141 F.3d 1171

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee,
v.
G.L.T., Defendant--Appellant.

No. 97-4257.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 9, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

G.L.T., a juvenile, pleaded guilty to first degree burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 5032 and South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-32-1 (Michie Supp.1997). On appeal, he challenges the amount of restitution imposed on him by the district court.[1] At sentencing, however, G.L.T. did not object to the order of restitution he challenges here, and he concedes on appeal that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663A (West Supp.1998), applies to this case. After careful review, we believe no plain error occurred in the imposition of restitution. See United States v. Riebold, No. 97-2837, 1998 WL 42594, at * 5 (8th Cir. Feb.5, 1998) (reviewing restitution order for plain error where defendant did not object). We note G.L.T. can assert his indigency in any future proceeding to enforce the restitution order. See Means v. United States, 961 F.2d 120, 121 (8th Cir.1992) (defendant cannot be punished by incarceration or reincarceration if failure to pay restitution occurred through no fault of his own and alternatives to incarceration are available.)

2

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota