green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.6 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Felix Severino
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
the requirement is mandatory, and a district court cannot enhance a defendant's sentence based on a prior conviction unless the government satisfies the requirement.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Smith
one 'panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of another panel' and 'the prior decision remains controlling authority unless this court overrules that prior decision en banc or a rule by the supreme court mandates its modification
discussed
Cited "see"
Northville Venture Partners, LLC v. Northville, City of
(2×)
See Indeck v. Energy Servs., Inc. v. Consumers Energy Co., 250 F.3d 972 , 979 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 566-67 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 529 U.S. 1029 (2000)) (finding an issue not raised at all waived “[b]ecause even ‘issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Francis Edward Springfield
See Springfield v. United States, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1444 , 146 L.Ed.2d 331 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Springfield
See Springfield v. United States, 529 U.S. 1029 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lopez
See United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 569 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied sub nom., Layne v. United States, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1443 , 146 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul Corrado, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Anthony Corrado, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
See United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 566-67 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1443 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000) ("issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived” (quotation omitted)). 13 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Emmanuel
See United States v. Emmanuel, No. 98- 4763, 1999 WL 1020548 (4th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (unpublished), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Shahborn Emmanuel
(2×)
See United States v. Emmanuel, No. 98-4763, 1999 WL 1020548 (4th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (unpublished), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1442 , 146 L.Ed.2d 329 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Kemmerling
See United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 789 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Kemmerling
See United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 789 (8th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1442 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dwyer
See United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1443 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lacy
See United States v. Springfield, 196 F.3d 1180, 1182 (10th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1444 , 146 L.Ed.2d 331 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lacy
See United States v. Springfield, 196 F.3d 1180, 1182 (10th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1444 , 146 L.Ed.2d 331 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ahee
See United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 566-67 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1443 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Andrew Niccademous Tyler
See United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 788 (8th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1442 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Indeck Energy Services, Inc. v. Consumers Energy Co.
See United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 566-67 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1443 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000) (quoting McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir.1997)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McKinnies
See also, United States v. Quintanilla, 193 F.3d 1139, 1148 (10th Cir.1999), ce rt. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1442 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000) (explaining that the court could not consider the issue as the defendant did not raise it in her new trial motion). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Johnson
Id.; see also United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 789 (8th Cir.1999) (citing the Dost criteria), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1442 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerome Hadley
(2×)
A finding of constructive possession may properly rest upon “[pjroof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located.” Kincaide, 145 F.3d at 782 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 572 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 , 120 S.Ct. 1443 , 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000); United States v. Shores, No. 02-6476, 2004 WL 690163 , at *3 (6th Cir. Mar.30, 2004) (finding that the defendant’s constructive possession of a firearm was established through evidence that the gun was found in the defendant’s bedro…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hadley
A finding of constructive possession may properly rest upon “[p]roof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located.” Kincaide, 145 F.3d at 782 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 572 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029 (2000); United States v. Shores, No. 02-6476, 2004 WL 690163 , at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 30, 2004) (finding that the defendant’s constructive possession of a firearm was established through evidence that the gun was found in the defendant’s bedroom, “a room in a house over whi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Leslie Paul Williams
That provision, § 2G3.1(b)(1), accords a five-or-more-level increase only “[i]f the offense involved an act related to distribution for pecuniary gain.” According to Judge Nelson, the lack of similarly restrictive language in § 2G2.2(b)(2) evinces the drafters’ “clear choice to give heavier sentences to those who engage in child pornography offenses.” Laney, 189 F.3d at 968 ; see also United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 791 (8th Cir.1999) (“If Congress had intended § 2G2.2(b)(2) to apply only to distribution for pecuniary gain, it could easily have said so directly.”), cert. …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Floyd
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 99-8155.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 20, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1) · Ninth Circuit (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.