United States v. Robert B. Ellis, Jr., 419 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Robert B. Ellis, Jr., 419 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (48 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jesse McKay, No. 20-30239 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1192 Vacating sentence and remanding for resentencing under booker33 citing casesreversing, post -Booker, application of a guided § 5K2.7 upward departure because it was misapplied, but noting that this did not diminish the court’s power to vary upwards under Booker1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Christopher Jacob Rankins, No. 18-12991 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2019).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 2005).
  • United States v. Brian Deronceler, No. 15-14999 (11th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018).unpublished
    Deronceler’s Sentence Deronceler challenges four aspects of his sentencing. “[T]he district court's interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual findings must be accepted unless clea…
  • United States v. Merkuri Stanback, 454 F. App'x 741 (11th Cir. 2011).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Joaquin Suarez-Flores, 385 F. App'x 881 (11th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Jacqueline Ann Demer, 369 F. App'x 979 (11th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Drew L. Paquin, 339 F. App'x 983 (11th Cir. 2009).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005). 2 . 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) prohibits "knowingly possessing], or knowingly accessing] with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or a…
  • United States v. Mario Martinez-Gonzalez, 286 F. App'x 672 (11th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    “The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005) (i…
  • United States v. Gina A. Wooten, 270 F. App'x 759 (11th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    “The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005) (i…
  • United States v. Ronnie Lee Douglas, Jr., 489 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2007).published
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Robbie Allen Mauldin, 224 F. App'x 915 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    “Post-Booker, we continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-Booker: The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual fi…
Show 23 more citing cases
  • United States v. Orin Cort, No. 05-16533 (11th Cir. Feb. 12, 2007).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 2005).
  • United States v. Robert J. Jabbour, No. 05-11225 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 2005).
  • United States v. Nicholas DeAngelis, 206 F. App'x 873 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Marcos Valenzela, 199 F. App'x 908 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005). “[A] district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the offense is a finding of fact to be reviewed only for clear error.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 937 . 1 “The *911 defend…
  • United States v. Shawn Strobele, 199 F. App'x 882 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    “Post-Booker, we continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-Booker: The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual fi…
  • United States v. James Marvin Cox, III, 188 F. App'x 889 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Arthur Lee Coleman, 184 F. App'x 848 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Alvaro Cortes Pinzon, 189 F. App'x 838 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment “Post-Booker, we continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-Booker.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Guilford Watson, III, 179 F. App'x 663 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    “Post-Booker, 1 we continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-Booker: The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual…
  • United States v. Brandon Dass, 178 F. App'x 992 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Rigoberto Montenegro Perlaza, 171 F. App'x 789 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Juan Reyes, 174 F. App'x 456 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    Additionally, "[p]ost-Booker, we continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-Booker ..." United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Jesus L. Garcia, 174 F. App'x 452 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    “Post-Booker, we continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-Booker .... ” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Dennis Gray Williams, 169 F. App'x 548 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    “The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005) (i…
  • United States v. Carlos Deon Williams, 431 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2005).published 2 cites
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Gerardo Torres-Lugo, 157 F. App'x 145 (11th Cir. 2005).unpublished
    “The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005) (i…
  • United States v. Carlos Vargas-Gutierrez, 156 F. App'x 235 (11th Cir. 2005).unpublished
    “The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review on appeal, while its factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005) (i…
  • United States v. Wilmar Pena, 156 F. App'x 225 (11th Cir. 2005).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 2005).
  • United States v. Casiano Baraona Estupinan, No. 05-11435 (11th Cir. Nov. 23, 2005).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 2005).
  • United States v. Kit Thomas Brown, 151 F. App'x 795 (11th Cir. 2005).unpublished
    After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we “continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines just as we did pre-Booker.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192-193 (11…
  • United States v. W. Dexter Harrison, 246 F. App'x 640 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    (reversing, post -Booker, application of a guided § 5K2.7 upward departure because it was misapplied, but noting that this did not diminish the court’s power to vary upwards under Booker)
  • United States v. Anthony Jerome Bell, 218 F. App'x 885 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    See United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005). 13 .
  • Asgeirsson v. Abbott, 773 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D. Tex. 2011).published
    See also United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir.2005) (“[Vjacated opinions are officially gone.
At page 1193 Determining relevance of underlying conduct for sentencing departure7 citing casesfinding that defendant could not be subject to upward departure for witness tampering and suspected civil rights violations where guilty pleas was for making false statement to FBI1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Jesse McKay, No. 20-30239 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022).unpublished
    While we have not clarified whether the dismissed conduct must be “meaningfully related” or “remotely related” to the offense of conviction, compare United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 2005), with United States v. Newsom…
  • United States v. Michael Anthony Nelson, No. 17-15338 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019).unpublished 2 cites
    In addition, the parties do not dispute that the district court could have imposed a prison term of up to three years in the 3 Nelson’s reliance on United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 2005), is misplaced.
  • United States v. Carlos Espinoza, 550 F. App'x 690 (11th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    Underlying conduct may justify a departure under this provision “only if it sheds further light on the true nature of the offense of conviction.” United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. Elmardoudi, 611 F. Supp. 2d 879 (N.D. Iowa 2008).published
    The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals cautioned, in a false statement case, that uncharged conduct should “provide[] a basis for departure only if it sheds further light on the true nature of the offense of conviction[,] ... rather [than]…
  • United States v. Newsom, 508 F.3d 731 (5th Cir. 2007).published
    (finding that defendant could not be subject to upward departure for witness tampering and suspected civil rights violations where guilty pleas was for making false statement to FBI)
  • United States v. Robert Jackson, 167 F. App'x 792 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    See United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir.2005).
  • United States v. James Lee Loggins, 165 F. App'x 785 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    See United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir.2005).
At page 1191 cited at this page1 citing case
  • United States v. Willie Edward Hill, 218 F. App'x 963 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    United States v. Ellis, 419 F.3d 1189, 1191 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir.2005)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Robert B. Ellis, Jr.
05-10150.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 21, 2005.
Unpublished opinion
419 F.3d 1189
Unpublished
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 21, 2005
No. 05-10150 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 04-00007-CR-HL-7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT B. ELLIS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia

(July 21, 2005)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ALARCON *, Circuit Judges.
[*~1189–1191]

PER CURIAM:

*

Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

[*~1190–1192]

Appellant’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing pursuant to the sentencing model set out in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __,

[*~1191–1193]

125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005). The mandate shall issue instanter.

[*~1192–1194]

Opinion to follow. Appellant is admitted to bail on the same conditions on which he was admitted to bail pretrial.