green
Positive treatment
6.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Barraza
In United States v. Dotson, 49 F.3d 227 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 848 , 116 S.Ct. 141 , 133 L.Ed.2d 87 (1995), the Sixth Circuit restated the test which must be applied to determine whether a warrant-less arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believ…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paredes-Lima
In Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964), the Supreme Court held that a warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place does not violate the Fourth Amendment if, at the time of the defendant’s arrest, the police had probable cause to believe that he has committed, is or will be committing an offense. 26 In United States v. Dotson, 49 F.3d 227 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 848 , 116 S.Ct. 141 , 133 L.Ed.2d 87 (1995), the Sixth Circuit restated the test which must be applied to determine whether a warrant-less arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held …
cited
Cited "see"
Little v. United States
See United States v. Lloyd, et al., 10 F.3d 1197 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1043 , 114 S.Ct. 1569 , 128 L.Ed.2d 213 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles Dale Bailey
See United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 628 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1043 , 114 S.Ct. 1570 , 128 L.Ed.2d 214 and 511 U.S. 1044 , 114 S.Ct. 1571 , 128 L.Ed.2d 215 (1994) (seeing gun handle under driver’s seat provided probable cause for police officers to arrest defendant on charges of carrying a concealed weapon).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hogan v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
In Dotson , the Sixth Circuit explained the test to be applied to determine whether a arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ridley
In Dotson , the Sixth Circuit explained the test to be applied to determine whether a warrantless arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of *715 which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct.…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bush
In Dotson , the Sixth Circuit explained the test to be applied to determine whether a warrantless arrest was lawful: The Supreme Court has held that the test for whether an arrest is constitutionally valid is “whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223 …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benjamin Y. Owusu (98-3356), Larry Latham (98-3847), and Anthony Latham (98-3850)
See United States v. Latouf, 132 F.3d 320, 332 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1086 , 118 S.Ct. 1542 , 140 L.Ed.2d 691 (1998). 2 Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, a defendant’s offense level may be decreased by two levels if he was a “minor participant in any criminal activity.” To qualify for this reduction, a defendant must be “ ‘less culpable than most other participants’ ” and “ ‘substantially less culpable than the average participant.’ ” United States v. Lloyd, 10 F.3d 1197, 1220 (6th Cir.1993) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 commentary, applic. note 3 & background), cert.…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Christopher Tate
See United States v. Carpenter, 11 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1043 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eric Taylor A/K/A \Shug\""
Where these conditions are met, the court will find plain error if the error " 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' " Id. at 736 , 113 S.Ct. at 1779 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391, 392 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)); see United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 629-30 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1043 , 114 S.Ct. 1570 , 128 L.Ed.2d 214 (1994). 11 Here, the district court instructed the jury as follows: 12 Three essential elements are required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Elder
See United States v. Lloyd, 10 F.3d 1197, 1215 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1043 , 114 S.Ct. 1569 , 128 L.Ed.2d 213 (1994); United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 30 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042 , 95 S.Ct. 2654 , 2656, 45 L.Ed.2d 693 (1975). 19 Since joinder was proper under Rule 8(b), the only remaining question is whether severance was mandated by Rule 14 due to prejudice.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Theophilis Bell
United States v. Armstrong, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 1487 (1996); see United States v. Brown, 9 F.3d 1374, 1375-76 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1568 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Theophilis Bell
United States v. Armstrong, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996); see United States v. Brown, 9 F.3d 1374, 1375-76 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1568 , 128 L.Ed.2d 213 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Uzquiano
(See, Oakes v United States, 872 F Supp 817, 824 [ED Wash 1994] [reaching this very conclusion]; see also, United States v Tilley, 18 F3d 295, 297-298 [5th Cir] ["if the prior civil forfeiture proceeding, which was predicated on the same drug trafficking offenses as charged in the indictment, constituted a 'punishment’, the Double Jeopardy Clause will bar the pending criminal trial”], cert denied 511 US 1043 [1994]; United States v One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, 37 F3d 489, 495 [9th Cir 1994] ["unless the civil forfeiture under § 881 (a) (4) can be predicated upon some offense other th…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ovalle
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 93-8218.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 18, 1994.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.