green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.1 score
“he mere presence of hearsay or inaccurate information in a presentence report does not constitute a denial of due process”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Daniel Holloway v. Thomas Conger, Daniel Lindblom Thomas Jones Dorothy Noonan and Merton Clarkson, as Members of the South Dakota State Brand Board and Individually the South Dakota State Brand Board. South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Inc., Daniel Holloway v. Thomas Conger Daniel Lindblom, Thomas Jones, Dorothy Noonan, and Merton Clarkson, as Members of the South Dakota State Brand Board and Individually, the South Dakota State Brand Board, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Inc
But see Merritt v. Mackey, 827 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir.1987) (finding of unconstitutional government interference in employment relationship dependent upon employee's enforceable entitlement to continued employment). 22 Even when a panel disagrees with a result reached in another opinion, it is bound by a prior Eighth Circuit decision, Yates v. United States, 753 F.2d 70, 71 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1022 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); therefore, we requested the benefit of postargument briefing by the parties as to the effect of Chernin on this case. 6 23 We …
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Timothy Paul Strayer
But see United States v. Tooker, 747 F.2d 975 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985) (defendant challenging sentence must show that information in presentence report was materially inaccurate and that judge relied on information) (Rule 35 motion); United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir.1984) (whether information in the presentence report was inaccurate was not clear since the defendant offered no additional evidence to refute the factual assertions).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Parker
he mere presence of hearsay or inaccurate information in a presentence report does not constitute a denial of due process
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Foreman
See United States v. Andrews, 746 F.2d 247 , 249 n.3 (5th Cir. 1984) (“a mere failure to state a purpose does not render the defendant’s consent involuntary”), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S. Ct. 2032 , 85 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wisconsin ex rel. Robinson v. Buchler
See United States v. Hendrix, 752 F.2d 1226, 1232 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); United States v. Banks, 687 F.2d 967, 973 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1212 , 103 S.Ct. 1208 , 75 L.Ed.2d 448 (1983); United States v. Ziperstein, 601 F.2d 281, 285 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1031 , 100 S.Ct. 701 , 62 L.Ed.2d 667 (1980); United States v. George, 477 F.2d 508, 515 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 827 , 94 S.Ct. 155 , 38 L.Ed.2d 61 (1973).
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. State
See United States v. Hendrix, 752 F.2d 1226, 1231 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jones
See United States v. Hendrix, 752 F.2d 1226, 1231 (7th Cir.) ("it was likely that they would conceal the cash in the apartment rather than in some less secure and accessible place"), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); Lucarz, 430 F.2d at 1055 (noting that affidavit "showed that appellant had ample opportunity to make a trip home to hide the stolen envelopes").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jones
See United States v. Hendrix, 752 F.2d 1226, 1231 (7th Cir.) ("it was likely that they would conceal the cash in the apartment rather than in some less secure and accessible place"), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 (1985); Lucarz, 430 F.2d at 1055 (noting that affidavit "showed that appellant had ample opportunity to make a trip home to hide the stolen envelopes").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cole
See United States v. Hendrix, 752 F.2d 1226, 1232 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); Kendall, 665 F.2d at 138 ; United States v. Hedman, 630 F.2d 1184, 1200 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 965 , 101 S.Ct. 1481 , 67 L.Ed.2d 614 (1981); United States v. Grabiec, 563 F.2d 313, 318-19 (7th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ivan Buljubasic and Slobodan Pavlovic
See United States v. Hendrix, 752 F.2d 1226, 1232 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); United States v. Banks, 687 F.2d 967, 973 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1212 , 103 S.Ct. 1208 , 75 L.Ed.2d 448 (1983); United States v. Ziperstein, 601 F.2d 281, 285 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1031 , 100 S.Ct. 701 , 62 L.Ed.2d 667 (1980); United States v. George, 477 F.2d 508, 515 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 827 , 94 S.Ct. 155 , 38 L.Ed.2d 61 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alfred D. Arellanes
Accord, Yates v. United States, 753 F.2d 70, 71 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); United States v. Hernandez, 750 F.2d 1256, 1260 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Walden, 578 F.2d 966, 972 (3d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 849 , 100 S.Ct. 99 , 62 L.Ed.2d 64 (1979); United States v. Sims, 529 F.2d 10, 12 (8th Cir.1976) (per curiam); Ugland v. United States, 596 F.Supp. 156, 157-59 (D.N.J.1984) (rejecting Tebha); United States v. Lockley, 590 F.Supp. 1215, 1217 (N.D.Ga.1984) (rejecting Tebha); United States v. Davi, 588 F.Supp. 91 (E.D…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
United States v. Carter, 884 F. 2d 368, 375 (8th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Andrews, 746 F. 2d 247, 250 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed. 2d 314 (1985), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Hurtado, 905 F. 2d 74 (5th Cir.1990) (en banc); United States v. Briley, 726 F. 2d 1301, 1304 (8th Cir.1984); Alexander v. United States, 390 F. 2d 101, 110 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Curry
See also United States v. Yates, 734 F.2d 368, 369 (8th Cir.1984) (“clear prejudice”), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1022 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); United States v. Sebetich, 776 F.2d 412, 427 (3d Cir.1985) (“clear and substantial prejudice”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Carl P. Fogel
To prove a due process violation, however, the defendant must show that the challenged information “is (1) false or unreliable, and (2) demonstrably made the basis for the sentence.” United States v. Ibarra, 737 F.2d 825, 827 (9th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Tooker, 747 F.2d 975, 978-80 (5th Cir.1984), cert, denied, 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985) (defendant has burden of showing that information is inaccurate and that court explicitly relied upon it); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Maldonado Garcia
See, e.g., U.S. v. Andrews, 746 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1984) cert. denied, Andrews v. U.S., 471 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
David Lee Rothgeb v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., Yates v. United States, 753 F.2d 70, 71 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985) 2 The preamble to the 1794 Pennsylvania statute stated: "And whereas the several offenses, which are included under the general denomination of murder, differ so greatly from each other in the degree of their atrociousness, that it is unjust to involve them in the same punishment." Pa.Laws of 1794 ch. 257, Secs. 1, 2 (1794) (quoted in Model Penal Code Sec. 210.2 n. 15 (1980)) 3 This court's recent decision, Stevens v. Armontrout, 78…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Juan C. Santamaria
Cf. United States v. Hartford, 489 F.2d 652, 656 (5th Cir.1974) (sentencing court’s statement that there may be no such thing as rehabilitation for people who push drugs, although not approved of by appellate court, did not indicate that the court had imposed sentence mechanistically); see also United States v. Hendrix, 752 F.2d 1226, 1234-35 (7th Cir.) (inference drawn by court that bank teller’s death by cancer had been speeded by the trauma of bank robbery was not so unsupported by record as to have denied defendant due process), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joe S. Gonzales
See also United States v. Tooker, 747 F.2d 975, 978-80 (5th Cir.1984) (defendant has the burden of showing materially inaccurate information and the court’s reliance on it), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2032 , 85 L.Ed.2d 314 (1985); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Merritt
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 84-6362.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 15, 1985.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.