Tanner Advert. Grp., L.L.C. v. Fayette Cnty., 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Tanner Advert. Grp., L.L.C. v. Fayette Cnty., 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
369 citation events (369 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Eric Lee Brown, No. 19-14607 (11th Cir. May 17, 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1019 Reviewing plain error and voluntary guilty pleas23 citing casesWhen neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has resolved an issue, and other circuits are split on it, there can be no plain error in regard to that issue.1 citing court put it this way · 17 listed here
  • United States v. Eric Lee Brown, No. 19-14607 (11th Cir. May 17, 2021).unpublished 2 cites
    (When neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has resolved an issue, and other circuits are split on it, there can be no plain error in regard to that issue.)
  • United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2009).published
    ([WJhen a defendant fails to object to a Rule 11 violation, we review only for plain error.)
  • United States v. Jatavious Griswold, No. 18-13809 (11th Cir. May 27, 2020).unpublished
    Where those three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019 (quotation marks om…
  • United States v. Stanley Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2018).published 4 cites
    Presendieu bears the burden of showing that “there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Id. at 1019 (citation omitted); see United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 , 62–63, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1048 (2002) (hol…
  • United States v. Shane Mariano, 636 F. App'x 532 (11th Cir. 2016).unpublished 2 cites
    Under plain error review, the party raising the challenge bears the burden of establishing that (1) there is an error; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects the substantial rights of the defendant; and (4) “the error seriously affe…
  • United States v. Mark Anthony Dacres, Jr., 625 F. App'x 396 (11th Cir. 2015).unpublished
    “Under plain error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice or the effect on substantial rights.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
  • United States v. Raymond Anthony Brown, 615 F. App'x 614 (11th Cir. 2015).unpublished
    Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019 (quotation omitted). “[I]t is fundamental error for a court to enter a judgment of conviction against a defendant who has not been charged, tried, or found guilty of the crime recited in the judgment.” United Sta…
  • United States v. Clifton Fidele Heard, 561 F. App'x 873 (11th Cir. 2014).unpublished 3 cites
    If these conditions are met, we may then exercise our discretion to recognize the error if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019 (quotations and alter…
  • Devon Toepfer v. United States, 518 F. App'x 834 (11th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    While due process demands that a defendant make a knowing and voluntary decision to plead guilty because "[a] guilty plea involves the waiver of a number of a defendant's constitutional rights,” Moriarity, 429 F.3d at 1019, that requiremen…
  • United States v. Rogelio Torres, 504 F. App'x 810 (11th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    In order to comply with Rule 11, a court accepting a guilty plea must “specifically address three ‘core principles,’ ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his guilty plea free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (8…
Show 7 more citing cases
  • United States v. Leonard William Willis, Jr., 423 F. App'x 847 (11th Cir. 2011).unpublished
    If all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to recognize a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity of public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1019 (quotation marks and…
  • United States v. Bentley, 417 F. App'x 877 (11th Cir. 2011).unpublished
    If all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to recognize a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity of public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1019 (quotation marks and…
  • United States v. Arthur Williams, Jr., 339 F. App'x 981 (11th Cir. 2009).unpublished 2 cites
    If all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to recognize a forfeited error, but only if the eiTor “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Under plain error review, “th…
  • Richard Allen Hill v. United States, 317 F. App'x 910 (11th Cir. 2009).unpublished
    If all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to recognize a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019 (cita…
  • United States v. Wissam Taysir Hammoud, 229 F. App'x 869 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished 3 cites
    Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1020 (holding that “a defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the…
  • United States v. Hector Sol Bazadoni-Loa, 220 F. App'x 943 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished
    Under the plain error standard of review, if an error is plain and affects the defendant’s substantial rights, then we may “exercise our discretion to recognize a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integ…
  • United States v. Roger v. Evans, 478 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2007).published
    Id. at 1019 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (alteration in original).
At page 1024 Sentencing within statutory limits is not cruel and unusual8 citing casesIn general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.1 citing court put it this way · 5 listed here
  • United States v. Wesley William Brandt, Jr., 585 F. App'x 754 (11th Cir. 2014).unpublished
    (In general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.)
  • United States v. Randall Scott Anderson, 509 F. App'x 868 (11th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    “In general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1024 (quotation omitted).
  • United States v. Young, 502 F. App'x 726 (10th Cir. 2012).unpublished
    See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2008) (upholding lifetime of supervision for possession of child pornography in part because the policy statement accompanying U.S.S.G. § 5Dl’.2(b)(2) “reflects the judgment of Congr…
  • United States v. Preston Angelo Williams, 264 F. App'x 795 (11th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    “In general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1024 (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • United States v. Michael Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2006).published 3 cites
    “In general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1024 (internal quotation marks omitted).
At page 1023 Burden on defendant to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility4 citing cases
  • United States v. Branden Lavon Millender, 791 F. App'x 782 (11th Cir. 2019).unpublished
    “The defendant bears the burden of clearly 5 Case: 19-10142 Date Filed: 10/15/2019 Page: 6 of 9 demonstrating acceptance of responsibility and must present more than just a guilty plea.” Id. at 1023.
  • United States v. George Elia, 579 F. App'x 752 (11th Cir. 2014).unpublished
    The defendant bears the burden of justifying the reduction, “and must present more than just a guilty plea.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1023 (quotation mark omitted).
  • United States v. Benjamin Todd Acton, 556 F. App'x 830 (11th Cir. 2014).unpublished 3 cites
    “The defendant bears the burden of clearly demonstrating acceptance of responsibility and must present more than just a guilty plea.” Id. at 1023 (quotation omitted).
  • United States v. Ronnie Lee, Jr., 391 F. App'x 831 (11th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    Although a guilty plea can constitute significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility, it may be outweighed by conduct of the defendant inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1023 (quotation and cita…
At page 1020 Showing reasonable probability of not having entered guilty plea3 citing casesholding that “a defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Adam Arnold, 667 F. App'x 738 (11th Cir. 2016).unpublished 3 cites
    When a defendant asserts that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11 and seeks reversal of his conviction after pleading guilty, the defendant must “show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have e…
  • United States v. Wissam Taysir Hammoud, 229 F. App'x 869 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished 3 cites
    (holding that “a defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error,…)
  • United States v. Lorme Kelly Davis, 238 F. App'x 519 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished
At page 1018 cited at this page1 citing case
  • United States v. Deangelo D. Thomas, 178 F. App'x 935 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished 2 cites
    Likewise, when a defendant fails to object to a Rule 11 violation, we review only for plain error.” Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1018-19 (citation omitted).
Other citing cases21 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 11 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TANNER ADVERTISING GROUP, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FAYETTE COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee
04-13210.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Nov 1, 2005.
Published opinion
429 F.3d 1012
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23549
2005 WL 2850068
Edward Adam Webb, Webb & Porter, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Dennis A. Davenport, McNally Fox & Grant, Fayetteville, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Edmondson, Tjoflat, Anderson, Birch, Dubina, Black, Carnes, Barkett, Hull, Marcus, Wilson, Pryor.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)
BY THE COURT:

A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.