United States v. MacIel-alcala (2010)
green
· 56 citation events
across 15 courts.
Showing the 23 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201020182026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
United States v. Graciela Zuniga-Arteaga (2012)
See United States v. LaFaive, 618 F.3d 613, 617-18 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir.2010); United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 746-47 (8th Cir.2008); United States v. Jimenez, 507 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir.2007).
green
United States v. LaFaive (2010)
Nor do we find dispositive the fact that Congress termed a violation of § 1028A an “aggravated theft.” Congress’s purpose in enacting the statute was not only to prevent harm to living victims, but also to “protect businesses from financial loss and the nation from terrorist threats.” Maciel-Alcala , at 1100.
green
United States v. Lester George (2020)
See United States v. Zuniga-Arteaga, 681 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. LaFaive, 618 F.3d 613 , 616–18 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741 , 746–47 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jimenez, 507 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 2007).
green
United States v. Volodymyr Kvashuk (2022)
Kvashuk argues that the test accounts do not “identify a specific individual,” id., because “they are simply tools for the testers to do their jobs for Microsoft.” He points out that the test accounts serve “Microsoft’s business purposes,” “are strictly controlled by Microsoft,” “are ‘programmed’ to make test purchases ‘in an automated fashion,’” and have TIP cards “associated with [them], not with the individual testers.” The test accounts’ purpose, prerequisites, and funct…
green
United States v. Juvenile Male (2018)
See United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We interpret identical phrases used in the same statute to bear the same meaning,” especially when the phrases are in “close proximity.”).
“We interpret identical phrases used in the same statute to bear the same meaning,” especially when the phrases are in “close proximity.”
green
United States v. Nolte (2016)
See United States v. Zuniga-Arteaga, 681 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. LaFaive, 618 F.3d 613, 616-17 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 746-47 (8th Cir 2008).
green
United States v. Chang Ru Meng Backman (2016)
Id. at 229 —31; cf. United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.2010) (“These practical considerations [about the application of the criminal statute at issue] are markedly different from those involved in Flores-Figueroa”).
green
United States v. Maria Sanchez (2012)
More recently, in United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2010), we held that Section 1028A was violated where the defendant used the name of a dead person to obtain a U.S. passport and then claim citizenship.
Applying 22 G.C.A. § 15204 alongside 22 G.C.A. § 15208, “any 18 person, corporation, association or partnership” that is exempted by 22 G.C.A. § 15204 would 19 20 not be penalized pursuant to 22 G.C.A. § 15208. 21 Moreover, it would be a stretch to interpret “foregoing sections” in 22 G.C.A. § 15204 to 22 include sections outside of Article 2, as that would encompass more than just Article 1 of 23 Chapter 15 of Division 2 of Title 22 of the Guam Code Annotated, because insur…
green
Haro v. Sebelius (2011)
United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010).
United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 570 , 115 S.Ct. 1061 , 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995)). “[I]f Congress intended for the person who filed the charge (“the person aggrieved”) to be the only person statutorily entitled to notice and consequently to file suit in the event the EEOC dismissed or declined to act on the charge, Congress must also have intended for the person who filed the charge (“the person agg…
green
United States v. Clinton Thompson, III (2013)
See United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).
green
United States v. Jose Cardenas (2011)
See United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1094, 1102 (9th Cir.2010).
green
United States v. Keith Woolridge (2015)
See United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.2010) (noting the evidence that the defendant knew the. victim was real will often be circumstantial).
green
United States v. Doren Ward (2014)
See United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2010).
green
United States v. Jimmy Hilton, Jr. (2012)
See, e.g., United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir.2010) (interpreting the term “person” in § 1028A to include both living and deceased persons).
green
Keil v. Triveline (2011)
See, e.g., United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1094-95 (9th Cir.2010); United States v. Gomez-Castro, 605 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir.2010); United States v. Castillo-Roman, 291 Fed.Appx. 273, 274 (11th Cir.2008); United States v. Lowes, 265 Fed.Appx. 887, 888 (11th Cir.2008).
green
United States v. Nosal (2011)
See United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir.2010).
green
United States v. Nosal (2011)
See United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2010).
green
Merila v. Burke (2024)
Home Health Servs., 2000 MT 381, ¶ 50 , 304 Mont. 1 , 16 P.3d 1042 (citation omitted); see also U.S. v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092 , 2 Conn. General Statutes § 34-355(5)(c) (“A partner is dissociated from a partnership upon occurrence of any of the following events: (5) On application by the partnership or another partner, the partner’s expulsion by judicial determination because (c) the partner engaged in conduct relating to the partnership business which makes it not rea…
See, e.g., United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir.2010) (“[O]ne cannot violate a deceased person’s civil or constitutional rights.”) (citation omitted); Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 637 F.2d 743, 749 (10th Cir.1980) (“[T]he civil rights of a person cannot be violated once that person has died.”) (citations omitted).
green
State v. Carlin (2011)
State v. Korsen, 141 Idaho 445 , 111 P.3d 130, 132-33 (2005). [76] Surland, 895 A.2d at 1041 n. 3; see also Coffman v. State, 172 P.3d 804, 807 (Alaska App. 2007) ("[E]ven though it is the [criminal] defendant's decision whether to appeal, it is the attorney's role to decide which issues to raise on appeal."). [77] AS 18.85.100(a) (emphasis added). [78] See, e.g., United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, Maciel-Alcala v. United States, ___ …
green
State v. Carlin (2011)
See, e.g., United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, Maciel-Alcala v. United States, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 673 , 178 L.Ed.2d 501 , 2010 WL 4168514 (Nov. 29, 2010); United States v. LaFaive, 618 F.3d 613, 618 (7th Cir.2010) ("We are also unpersuaded that because some states have drafted identity theft statutes that explicitly mention deceased individuals, we should not read deceased persons into the definition of "person" in § 1028A.