How cited: United States v. Jeff Levenderis · Go Syfert

United States v. Jeff Levenderis (2015)

green · 38 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 23 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201520202026
Quote Authority · 6th Cir. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion
See Levenderis, 806 F.3d at 400 (“Defendant stresses the fact that the room was small and the agents sat closely around his bed while they questioned him.
“Defendant stresses the fact that the room was small and the agents sat closely around his bed while they questioned him. However, there is also no evidence agents prevented him from getting up from his bed.”
Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 399 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
“When reviewing the district court’s decision regarding a motion to suppress, we review its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 399 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Such “claims are mixed questions of law and fact, which [we] review de novo.” United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 400 (6th Cir. 2015).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 , 112–15 (1995); United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 399 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 400 (6th Cir. 2015).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Both “originate in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and both are treaty- implementing statutes,” id. (quoting United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2015)), and both are about weapons that are similarly accessible, cf. id.
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 399 (6th Cir. 2015).
green United States v. Perez (2022)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
The Sixth Circuit was most explicit: It noted that “both § 229 and § 175 originate in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and both are treaty-implementing statutes.” That court thus elected to “follow the Supreme Court’s instruction and interpret § 175 in light of federalism principles.” United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2015).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
De novo review also applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 2015).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 399 (6th Cir.2015).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Although there is “an exception to this general rule” that permits “review [of] an ineffective-assistanee-of-counsel claim on direct appeal where ‘the record is adequately developed to allow the court to properly assess the merits of the issue,’ ” United States v. Williams, 612 F.3d 500, 508 (6th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Fortson, 194 F.3d 730, 736 (6th Cir.1999)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 944 , 131 S.Ct. 367 , 178 L.Ed.2d 237 (2010), that exception generally does not ap…
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
United States v. Levendens, 806 F.3d 390, 399 (6th Cir.2015).
Quote Authority · W.D.N.Y. · signal: see also
Id. at 2087-2092 ; see also United States v. Levenderis, No. 14-4004, 2015 WL 7003308, at *4 (6th Cir. Nov. 12, 2015) (“In its Bond decision, the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional issue, holding instead that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, § 229(a) did not cover the defendant’s unremarkable local offense.”) (quotation omitted).
“In its Bond decision, the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional issue, holding instead that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, § 229(a) did not cover the defendant’s unremarkable local offense.”
Cited (see also) · 6th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390 , 401–02 (6th Cir. 2015).
Cited (see also) · 6th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390 , 401–02 -9- No. 21-5302, United States v. Watts (6th Cir. 2015).
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 400 (6th Cir. 2015) (characterizing a thirty-minute interview as “relatively brief”).
characterizing a thirty-minute interview as “relatively brief”
Cited (see also) · 6th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390 , 401–02 (6th Cir. 2015).
green United States v. Le (2018)
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., United States v. Levenderis , 806 F.3d 390 , 395 (6th Cir. 2015) (affirming § 175(a) conviction for possession of ricin).
affirming § 175(a) conviction for possession of ricin
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390 , 401–02 (6th Cir. 2015).
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 402 (6th Cir. 2015) -5- No. 17-3203, United States v. Rafidi (holding that a “small window into defense counsel’s thought process” was insufficient to resolve the defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal).
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 2015).