green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
32.1 score
“of course, 'it is not necessary to prove that the extortioner himself, directly or indirectly, received the fruits of his extortion or any benefit therefrom. the hobbs act does not require such proof.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wacker Drive Executive Suites, LLC v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas (Illinois), LP
of course, 'it is not necessary to prove that the extortioner himself, directly or indirectly, received the fruits of his extortion or any benefit therefrom. the hobbs act does not require such proof.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Tracey Brown
ven a slight impact on interstate commerce is sufficient to sustain a conviction . . . under the hobbs act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
v. People
See, e.g., United States v. Oslund, 453 F.3d 1048, 1054 (8th Cir. 2006) (providing factors for courts to consider in deciding whether a tape’s “substance and the circumstances under which it was obtained” provide “sufficient proof of its reliability” when determining admissibility (quoting United States v. Webster, 84 F.3d 1056, 1064 (8th Cir. 1996))); United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 951 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that to authenticate a voice recording, the trial court must be satisfied that the recording is “accurate, authentic, and generally trustworthy” (quoting United…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richard Renzi
(2×)
First, “it is not necessary to prove that the extortioner himself, directly or indirectly, received the fruits of his extortion or any benefit therefrom.” United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Hacha
In United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2001), the defendant and his coconspirators, intending to force a loan shark to give up his business, threatened him with a show of force at his auto shop.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hacha
In United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir.2001), the defendant and his coconspirators, intending to force a loan shark to give up his business, threatened him with a show of force at his auto shop.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Renzi
(2×)
Acquisition Of Property The Ninth Circuit describes Hobbs Act extortion as a “larceny-type offense,” which' “does not occur when a victim is merely forced to part with property.” United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McFall
UNITED STATES v. MCFALL 2875 [2] We have stated that Hobbs Act extortion is a “larceny- type offense,” which “does not occur when a victim is merely forced to part with property.” United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McFall
We have stated that Hobbs Act extortion is a “larceny-type offense,” which “does not occur when a victim is merely forced to part with property.” United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kupau v. United States Department of Labor
United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cantrell
See Bear Lake Watch, Inc. v. FERC, 324 F.3d 1071 , 1077 n. 8 (9th Cir.2003) (refusing to reach issue that "was not really briefed, although it was mentioned” because "[m]ention is not enough”); United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 951-52 (9th Cir.2001) (declining to review district court's allegedly erroneous admission of hearsay statements where appellant made only general assertions of error and failed to identify the particular statements he was seeking to challenge).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pellicano
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pellicano argues that even prior to Scheidler,, the government lacked probable cause based on our decision in United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir.2001), in which we held that the “obtaining” element of § 1951 required that the victim must not only be deprived of property, but that someone must receive the property as a result of the deprivation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anthony Dejohn (02-3158) Christopher Harb (02-3175)
(2×)
While we have not in our prior cases indicated precisely what foundation is necessary to admit audiotapes where the challenge is to their admission generally, other circuits have alternately held that the district court must be satisfied that the recording is "`accurate, authentic, and generally trustworthy,'" United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 951 (9th Cir.2001) (citations omitted), that "simply required [is] proof that the tape recording accurately reflects the conversation in question," United States v. Doyon, 194 F.3d 207, 212 (1st Cir.1999), or that "a proper foundation ... may be est…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony Gadson
(2×)
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 951 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Mouton, 617 F.2d 1379, 1383-84 (9th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Carlos Ezeta
See United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir.2009) (interpreting “obtain” in a different context to require “someone — either the extortioner or a third person” to receive property and noting that the extortioner does not need to directly or indirectly benefit (quoting United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir.2001))).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donell Hatcher
(2×)
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 952 (2001) (upholding a role adjustment where the defendant exercised 'decisionmaµing authority' and where the 'nature of the offense' indicated that he was the leader).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kalish
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kalish
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Quan
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Florez
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul Corrado, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Anthony Corrado, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 953-54 (9th Cir.2001) (“The record reflects that Panaro, Ciño and the other conspirators repeatedly reassured DeLuca that Blitzstein would capitulate to the demand that Blitzstein relinquish his interests in the auto shop and loansharking businesses, and he would do that because of the conspirators’ presence when the demand was to be made.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Estrada-Rendon
See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Scheele, 231 F.3d 492 , 497 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barnes v. U.S. Attorney
See United States v. Pa-naro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Johansson, 249 F.3d 848, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Apprendi does not apply where guideline sentencing increase in offense level “did not increase the maximum penalty for the crime to which [defendant] pled guilty”); United States v. Silva, 247 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2001) (“An unconditional guilty plea ‘constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional antecedent rulings and cures all antecedent constitutional defec ts.’"). 1 The application to file a second or successive pet…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ferluga v. Eickhoff
See, e.g., United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that extortion can occur when either the extortioner or a third person receives the property of which the victim is deprived); United States v. Tuchow, 768 F.2d 855, 872-73 (7th Cir.1985) (evidence was sufficient to sustain extortion conviction where city alderman attempted to extort money in exchange for a building permit).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Cornelio Norris
See, e.g., United States v. Pa-naro, 266 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir.2001), as amended (remanding to the district court for re-sentencing after reversing defendant’s conviction on one count of a multiple-count indictment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Norris
See, e.g., United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (remanding to the district court for re-sentencing after revers- ing defendant’s conviction on one count of a multiple-count indictment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Nichol
See Federal Rules of Appellate Pro cedure Rule 28(a)(9)(A); see also United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 951-52 (9th Cir.2001) (declining to review issue where appellant made only general assertions of error and failed to identify the particular problems he was seeking to challenge); United States v. Alonso, 48 F.3d 1536, 1544 (9th Cir.1995) (“Appellate courts frequently refuse to address issues that appellants fail to develop in their briefs.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Roy
See United States v. LeBlanc, 24 F.3d 340, 346 (1st Cir.1994); see also United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 949-50 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Reed, 167 F.3d 984, 993 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1215-16 (3d Cir.1993); United States v. Skinner, 946 F.2d 176, 177-78 (2d Cir.1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hermanek
See, e.g., United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hermanek
See, e.g., United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mustin
As such, Appren-di is not implicated. 1 See United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128 , 1131 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2000); see, e.g., United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming USSG § 283.2(b)(1) enhancement).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Terzin
See United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128 , 1131 n. 1 (9th Cir.2000); see, e.g., United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming USSG § 2B3.2(b)(l) enhancement).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Antonio RICHARDSON, Petitioner,
v.
Michael BOWERSOX, Respondent
v.
Michael BOWERSOX, Respondent
98-3293.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mar 6, 2001.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
Appellant has filed a motion to recall the mandate and a motion for a stay of execution. The motion for a stay of execution is granted, the stay to remain in force pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in No. 00-6677, Penry v. Johnson, and until further order of this court.
In accordance with the Supreme Court of the United States’s order in No. 00A773 Luebbers, Supt., POTOSI v. Richardson, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1250, 149 L.Ed.2d 156 the stay of execution granted by this court on March 6, 2001, is vacated. Appellant’s motion to recall the mandate is denied.