green
Positive treatment
10.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Derek Foster
But see United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990); United States v. Carter, 901 F.2d 683, 684-85 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Hernandez-Cuartas, 717 F.2d 552, 555 (11th Cir.1983). 7 .The text of Rule 702 states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. 8…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Benjamin Niebla-Pacheco, United States of America v. Julio Cesar Quintero-Romero, United States of America v. Sergio Alejandro Leon-Villareal
"A plain error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights." Id. at 501 (internal quotations omitted). 20 We hold that the district court did not commit plain error by admitting this evidence.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Walter R. Gutierrez
"A plain error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights." Id. at 501 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Karola Jamison
See United States v. Rivera, 43 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990)) ("a party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection, ... but also by making the wrong specific objection") 5 The government claims, see Appellee's Br. at 21, and Jamison does not dispute, that there was a hearing outside the presence of the jury at which she could have made these objections 6 Jamison claims that the district judge interrup…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Santiago Pena-Espinoza
(2×)
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Boonphakdee
See United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.) ("Section 841(a) of Title 21 prohibits the distribution of any amount of cocaine and in no way requires proof of a particular quantity of narcotics as an element of the conspiracy to distribute."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Boonphakdee
See United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.) (“Section 841(a) of Title 21 prohibits the distribution of any amount of cocaine and in no way requires proof of a particular quantity of narcotics as an element of the conspiracy to distribute.”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael A. Smith, and Kwabene D. German, A/K/A Kwabene Gibson
See United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Terry Ann Deisch
See United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 678 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990) (cocaine; citing cases).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Deisch
See United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 678 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990) (cocaine; citing cases).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Monocchi
See United States v. Pico, 2 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Daniel L. Norman
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990); United States v. Morris, 827 F.2d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Craig Lee Childs
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William Pico
See United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.) (holding that under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 & 846 “quantity is relevant only to enhancement of the sentence”), cer t. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joe Morgan v. Bill Woessner, and Clay Searle Los Angeles City, (Two Cases)
(2×)
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.) ("[A] party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection, [citations omitted], but also by making the wrong specific objection [citations omitted]”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990). .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ruben Taren-Palma, United States of America v. Ismael Calderon-Perez
(2×)
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Hanan Sundiata
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990) (To preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal, at trial a party must make the proper specific objection.).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tyrone Tucker
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ramon Gonzalez-Garcia
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.) ("a party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection, but also by making the wrong specific objection" (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990). 70 "Plain error will be found only if the error was highly prejudicial and there was a high probability that the error materially affected the verdict." United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314, 1319 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard B. Hudson, Sr.
(2×)
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.) (specific objection made on the wrong grounds and overruled precludes a party from raising a specific objection on other, tenable, grounds on appeal), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joe Morgan v. Bill Woessner, and Clay Searle Los Angeles City, (Two Cases)
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.) ("[A] party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection, [citations omitted], but also by making the wrong specific objection [citations omitted]”), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ted A. Musacchio
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank Williams, Jr.
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501 (9th Cir.) (finding no plain error when the district judge twice cautioned the jury to consider the profile testimony only as background material), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ted A. Musacchio
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Naranjo
See United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2nd Cir.1990) (citations to other Circuits provided), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FRANK WILLIAMS, JR
See United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501 (9th Cir.) (finding no plain error when the district judge twice cautioned the jury to consider the profile testimony only as background material), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James Small
See, e.g., United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501 (9th Cir.) (“Courts are keenly aware of the dangers of admitting testimony concerning the drug courier profile.”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ana Marin De Velasquez
See, e.g., United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947 , 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Kruse
Fed.R.Evid. 103; see, e.g., United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 499-500 (9th Cir.) (holding that a party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection but also by making the wrong specific objection), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 363 , 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The People of the Territory of Guam v. Genaro Sitson Vitug
See, e.g., United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.) (collecting cases and authorities interpreting Fed.R.Evid. 103(a), the federal analog of 6 Guam Code Ann. § 103 (a)), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990). 8 Because Vitug failed to properly object below, we review the admission of Crueldad's statement for plain error.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Orlando Vega
See, e.g., United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Payton v. Spruiell
Rule 77(d) also provides however, that "[l]ack of notice of the entry by the clerk does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure." Fed.R.Civ.P. 77(d); see also United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sprewell. United States v. Jackson
See, e.g., United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501 (9th Cir.) ("Courts are keenly aware of the dangers of admitting testimony concerning the drug courier profile."), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 363 (1990). 46 Despite his attempt to analogize to "drug courier profiles," Jackson is essentially arguing that the district court erroneously admitted officer Rieben's testimony in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Campuzano
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 90-5685.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 29, 1990.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.