green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
45.1 score
“because the psr has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, it may be considered ' as evidence by the trial court at sentencing.”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Moyosore Ismoila Segun Debowale Nuratu Lawanson, United States of America v. Moyosore Ismoila
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
because the psr has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, it may be considered ' as evidence by the trial court at sentencing.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Ismoila
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
because the psr has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, it may be considered as evidence by the trial court at sentencing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Breimeister
“We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds de novo and accept the underlying factual findings of the district court unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sanders
He also contends that even if this court invalidates his conviction based on Count Two, we must remand for resentencing because being charged with two counts that were potentially punishable by death “implicated the reliability of the proceeding under the Eighth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §3593 (c).” 190 He essentially argues that “because jurors may get the faulty impression that just because there are two counts, the crime is worse or the defendant more culpable—and therefore more deserving of death.” 191 He made similar arguments in another section of his brief regarding a different…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Selena Flores
Because our court has held pleading not-guilty to conspiracy puts a defendant’s intent at issue for purposes of Rule 404(b), see United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted), and because knowledge of a person’s status as an illegal alien is an element of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 , the evidence proffered was relevant to an issue other than Flores’ character.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Melvin Coleman, Jr.
To support a drug conspiracy conviction, the government must establish “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) *354 the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eugene Thompson
A drug conspiracy requires evidence of “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate [the] narcotics laws; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eugene Thompson
(2×)
A drug conspiracy requires evidence of “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate [the] narcotics laws; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chikenna Jones
A. Double Jeopardy “We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment *580 on double jeopardy grounds de novo and accept the underlying factual findings of the district court unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hoeffner
United States v. Mauskar, 557 F.3d 219, 227 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir. 1996)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hoeffner
United States v. Mauskar, 557 F.3d 219, 227 (5th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir.1996)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. State
United States v. Pompa, 434 F.3d 800, 805 (5th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir.1996)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chandler
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garcia Mendoza
For conspiracy convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 846 , the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mauskar
Mauskar argues without citation to authority that “Count One ... diminished [his] right to be free from Double Jeopardy” because (1) “[ajssuming ... that the jury unanimously agreed that one means submitted to them was proven and the other two were not, then a third trial would place Mauskar in jeopardy of conviction on a theory that was unanimously rejected”; and (2) “it’s possible that the jury in the first trial ... unanimously agreed that Mauskar was not guilty of one of the conspiracies entailed in Count One but could not decide the issue as to any one of the other theories, t…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Whitehead
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir.1996). 10 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Flores
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gallien
See Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 675-76 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 ; United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pompa
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Floyd
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Garcia
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.3 Under this standard, this court views all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.4 To establish guilt of a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 841 , the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreemen…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Solis
Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d at 284 (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996)). 81 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Virgen-Moreno
In a prosecution for drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 841 , 2 the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Duncan
Cf. United States v. Asibor, 109 F.3d 1023, 1039 (5th Cir.) (reviewing de novo denial of motion to dismiss indictment for outrageous Government conduct), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 902 (1997); United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir. 1996) (reviewing de novo denial of motion to dismiss indictment on double jeopardy grounds).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Montgomery
(2×)
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996); see United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 997 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Quiroz-Hernandez, 48 F.3d 858, 871 (5th Cir. 1995)(a substantive conviction cannot be upheld under Pinkerton unless the jury was given a Pinkerton instruction) 4 The text of the Jencks Act provides, in pertinent part: (b) After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Richards
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir.1996)(quoting United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 1261, 1268 (5th Cir.1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir. 1996)(quoting United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 1261, 1268 (5th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Turner v. Johnson
See United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 273 , 116 S.Ct. 2135 , 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996); Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 395-96 , 115 S.Ct. 2199 , 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995); Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 769 n. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1937 , 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994); United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 695-97 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993); United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989); United States v. Cluck, 87 F.3d 138, 140 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1343 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Macias-Castro
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d 1028, 1030 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kelley
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Williams
The elements of a drug conspiracy are: “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate the narcotics law; (2) the defen *910 dant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pena-Rodriguez
In conducting a sufficiency review, we must view the evidence and the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and determine whether "a rational trier of fact could have found these defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Velgar-Vivero, 8 F.3d 236, 239 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1096 , 114 S.Ct. 1865 , 128 L.Ed.2d 486 (1994). 5 The elements of a drug conspiracy are: "(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant's volun…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pena-Rodriguez
The elements of a drug conspiracy are: “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Campos v. Johnson
See Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 ,-, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 2204 , 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995); Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 769 n. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1937 , 1941 n. 1, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994); United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 , 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1897 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989); United States v. Cluck, 87 F.3d 138, 140 (5th Cir.1996); and United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1343 (5th Cir.1996). 64 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Payne
The elements of a drug conspiracy are: “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Captain
United States v. Sanchez, 961 F.2d 1169, 1179 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 918 (1992). 7 The elements of a drug conspiracy are: “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Misher
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MICHAELA RAE HOLLEY v. STATE OF TEXAS
See Baker v. Metcalfe, 633 F.2d 1198, 1201 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CEDRIC DWAYNE ROBERSON
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CEDRIC DWAYNE ROBERSON
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AL RICHARDS, KURT LATRASSE, AND ROGER BRAUGH
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir. 1996)(quoting United States v. Anderson, 933 33 F.2d 1261 , 1268 (5th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEVEN E MAY, Sheriff
Ed. 2d 490 (1994). -2- held, “The defendant must be a party to the forfeiture proceeding for jeopardy to attach." United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1343 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818 , 830 n.12 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that jeopardy does not attach where “defendant is a non-party to a forfeiture proceeding, and does not assert ownership over the property”), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1340 , 134 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNETH O. PAYNE; TOMMY RIGMAIDEN; ELIJAH MARTIN, JR
United States v. Sanchez, 961 F.2d 1169, 1179 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 918 (1992). 7 The elements of a drug conspiracy are: “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to violate narcotics law; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the agreement; and (3) the defendant’s voluntary participation in the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Patrick Terrell v. State of Mississippi
(2×)
See United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347-48 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that, in a conspiracy case, evidence defendant had been charged in a similar crime “raises the issue of intent sufficiently to justify the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence”); see also Shanklin v. Lowman, 2011 WL 290643 , at *13 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2011) (holding that civil judgments against a defendant for unauthorized cutting of trees, though involving slight factual differences, were “still relevant as [they] involved Lowman removing timber from property without authorization” and thus were admissible …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Krueger
(2×)
See United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347-48 (5th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Smith
See United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir.1996) (finding no error where similar instruction was offered by district court); see also Taylor, 210 F.3d at 318 (evidence of prior possession with intent to distribute cocaine base more probative than prejudicial to prosecution for intent to distribute cocaine base where district court gave proper limiting instruction). 22 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Celestine
See United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir.1996); Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gallien
See United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1342 (5th Cir. 1996); Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
F.3d 620w UNITED STATES of America
v.
Joel GONZALEZ and Jose Francisco Gomez
v.
Joel GONZALEZ and Jose Francisco Gomez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joel GONZALEZ and Jose Francisco Gomez, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 94-60342.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 26, 1996.
NOTE: THE COURT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS OPINION