United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691 (11th Cir. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691 (11th Cir. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“brown ii”
46 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James Joseph Brown v. United States (ca11, 2014-04-07)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) James Joseph Brown v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
brown ii
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Patrick Richard Smith (6×)
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
But the government may offer “any information, including reliable hearsay, regardless of the information’s admissibility at trial, provided that there are sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy as evidence of a prior conviction.” United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 710 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1150 (2009), reinstated, 329 F. App’x 253 (11th Cir. 2010).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. United States (3×)
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
United States v. Brown (Brown II), 329 Fed.Appx. 253, 254 (11th Cir. 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Oscar Ceron
5th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
See United States v. Montano, 505 Fed.Appx. 299, 300 (5th Cir.2013), ce rt. denied,, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2367 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1086 (2013) (evaluating plain error “on the limited record before the district court”); United States v. Troyer, 677 F.3d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir.2012) (“[T]he error must be clear on the record in the district court.”); United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 707 (11th Cir.2008), vacated on other grounds by 556 U.S. 1150 , 129 S.Ct. 1668 , — L.Ed.2d - (2009) (noting that the use of “inherent equitable powers ... to supplement the record with information not revie…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Armando Antonio Castro (2×)
11th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Davila, 133 S.Ct. at 2147 ; United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 704 (11th Cir.2008), cert. granted and judgment vacated on a different ground, 556 U.S. 1150 , 129 S.Ct. 1668 , — L.Ed.2d-(2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Irey
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
It is sufficient that the district court considers the defendant’s arguments at sentencing and states that it has taken the § 3553(a) factors into account.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 713 (11th Cir. 2008); Ellisor, 522 F.3d at 1278 . 70 Judge Tjoflat’s separate opinion now asserts, however, that he would have this Court sitting en banc overturn our precedent on the amount of specificity required of a sentencing judge.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Irey (2×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
It is sufficient that the district court considers the defendant's arguments at sentencing and states that it has taken the § 3553(a) factors into account." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 713 (11th Cir.2008); Ellisor, 522 F.3d at 1278 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wright
S.D. · 2008 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 704 (11th Cir.2008) (noting that to obtain reversal of a conviction after a guilty plea on grounds that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11, the appellant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Curtis Lee Brasfield
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
A. Due Process and Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(l)(C) “We review de novo constitutional challenges to a sentence, assuming they are properly preserved.” United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 708 (11th Cir.2008), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. No. 08-5564) (July 28, 2008). 3 The provision in Rule 32 on which Brasfield relies to support his due process argument provides: “At sentencing, the court ... must allow the parties’ attorneys to comment on the probation officer’s determinations and other matters relating to an appropriate sentence.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(l)(C).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mynor Rolando Herrera Aguilar (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
“In determining whether a sentence is substantively reasonable, this Court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322 . “[I]n imposing a reasonable sentence, the district court need only acknowledge that it considered the § 3553(a) factors ... and need not discuss each of these factors in either the sentencing hearing or in the sentencing order.” United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 713 (11th Cir.2008) (quotation marks and emphasis omitted); see also United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1278 (11th Cir.2008) (“[A] court’s explicit acknowledgme…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jimmy Oliver
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
In United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 706 (11th Cir.2008), this court listed three factors that it would consider in determining the “relative significance of the Rule 11 error on the defendant’s plea decision: later protests by the defendant (for example, at sentencing), the overall strength of the government’s case, and possible defenses that appear from the record.” (citing United States v. Steele, 148 Fed.Appx. 823, 826-27 (11th Cir.2005) (unpublished)). 3 .
cited Cited "see" Michael Rozier v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 710-12 (11th Cir. 2008), judgment vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1150 (2009).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. William James Leach
11th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 705 (11th Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1150 , 129 S.Ct. 1668 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1050 (2009) (except for the element of “means of interstate commerce,” the elements of § 2422(b) are not complex because they have the same meaning in legal usage as they do in the course of routine usage).
discussed Cited "see" James Joseph Brown v. United States (2×)
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691 (11th Cir.2008) (“Brown I"), vacated, 556 U.S. 1150 , 129 S.Ct. 1668 , - L.Ed.2d - (2009).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Terry Don Northcutt (2×)
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 710-13 (11th Cir.2008), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1150 , 129 S.Ct. 1668 , — L.Ed.2d - (2009) (concluding that uncertified docket sheets downloaded from a court’s website were sufficient to prove that the defendant had a prior aggravated-assault conviction that would serve as a predicate for a career-offender sentence enhancement).
cited Cited "see" Josefina Olacirequi Sanchez v. United States
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 713 (11th Cir.2008) (“[This Court] construe[s] statutory language as to avoid absurd results”).
discussed Cited "see" Richard Allen Hill v. United States
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 704 (11th Cir.2008) (stating that the third “core concern” of Rule 11 is to ensure “that the defendant knows and understands the consequences of pleading guilty”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Brannen Tidwell
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691 , 697 n. 1 (11th Cir.2008). 2 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Yaima Gonzalez
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691, 704 (11th Cir.2008), petition for cert, filed, (no. 08-5564) (July 28, 2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Joseph BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
05-16128.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 8, 2009.
526 F.3d 691
Harriett R. Galvin, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dawn Bowen, Daniel L. Rashbaum, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Margaret Y. Foldes, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tjoflat, Fay, Siler.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)

[*254] ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM:

In United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d 691 (11th Cir.2008), we affirmed appellant’s conviction [1] for using a facility and means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). We also affirmed the sentence he received as a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Appellant petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review our judgment. The Court granted the writ, in No. 08-5664, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to this court “for further consideration in light of Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. - [,129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484] (2009).” On receipt of the Supreme Court’s mandate, we requested and received supplemental briefing from the parties.

In Chambers, the defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The question before the Supreme Court was whether the crime of “failure to report” to a penal institution, in violation of Ill. Comp. Stat., ch 720, § 5/31~6(a) (West Supp.2008), qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). 555 U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 688. The Court held that it did not. Id. This case at hand does not present that question. Appellant nonetheless contends that the rationale the Supreme Court utilized in reaching its holding should inform our answer to the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) is a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Appellant acknowledges that our decision in United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1198 (11th Cir.2005), has already answered that question— § 2422(b) is a crime of violence under § 4B 1. In reviewing appellant’s sentence, we followed Sear-cy, as we were bound to do, in holding that appellant’s § 2422(b) offense constituted a crime of violence. United States v. Brown, 526 F.3d at 702. Appellant asks that we reconsider Searcy in light of Chambers. We have done so, and find nothing in Searcy’s holding that is inconsistent with Chambers.

The judgment of the district court is, accordingly,

AFFIRMED.

1

. Appellant was convicted on a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.