United States v. John Ellis Cupit, IV (1999)
green
· 26 citation events
across 7 courts.
Showing the 14 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200020132026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
United States v. Steven Ira Cohen (2006)
See United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (4th Cir.1995) (implicitly finding that a defendant who waives the “right to appeal her sentence on [the] grounds [listed in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (a) ]” is deemed to have waived the right to appeal a lawfully imposed restitution order); see also United States v. Sharp, 442 F.3d 946, 948-52 (6th Cir.2006) (dismissing appeal of restitution order where defendant waived the right “to appeal the conviction or sentence in t…
considering challenge to restitution order despite defendant’s agreement to “waive all rights to appeal whatever sentence is imposed,” expressly declining to “resolve the waiver of restitution issue in this case”
yellow
United States v. Cohen (2006)
See United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (4th Cir. 1995) (implicitly finding that a defendant who waives the "right to appeal her sentence on [the] grounds [listed in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (a)]" is deemed to have waived the right to appeal a lawfully imposed restitution order); see also United States v. Sharp, 442 F.3d 946, 948-52 (6th Cir. 2006) (dismissing appeal of restitution order where defendant waived the right "to appeal the conviction or sentence in …
per curiam
green
United States v. Black (2014)
See Lemke v. Ryan, 719 F.3d 1093, 1098-99 (9th Cir.2013); United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 , 472 & n. 6 (6th Cir.2006); United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir.1999). 3 .
green
United States v. Michael Allison (2014)
We review for clear error “the district court’s factual finding of loss relating to restitution.” United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir.1999).
green
United States v. Tracy Clemons (2013)
“We review the district court’s factual finding of loss relating to restitution under a clearly erroneous standard and a challenge to the district court’s application or construction of the Guidelines de novo.” United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir.1999) (citations omitted).
green
United States v. Monserrate-Valentin (2010)
However, in a later section of the PSI Report, it sets the total restitution amount at $932,225, mistakenly giving a credit to the perpetrators of $12,000. -3- F.3d 152, 157 (2d Cir. 2006) (allowing such an appeal), United States v. Behrman, 235 F.3d 1049, 1052 (7th Cir. 2000) (same), United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir. 1999) (same), and United States v. Phillips, 174 F.3d 1074, 1075 (9th Cir. 1999) (same), with United States v. Perez, 514 F.3d 296, 298 (3d C…
same
green
United States v. Morgan (2002)
See United States v. JoDon, 19 Fed.Appx. 443 , No. 01-1449, 2001 WL 1098100 at *1 (8th Cir. Sept.20, 2001) (declining to decide whether waiver of right to appeal sentence barred appeal of special condition of supervised release and proceeding to defendant’s claim on the merits); United States v. Bahe, 201 F.3d 1124 , 1126 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000) (declining to reach the issue of whether a waiver of the right to appeal the sentence barred an appeal of an allegedly illegal conditio…
concluding that it was unclear whether waiver encompassed appeal of restitution, declining to address the waiver of restitution issue and, instead, addressing the merits of the restitution issue
green
United States v. Whitlow, John (2002)
See Behrman, 235 F.3d at 1052 ("just as we are willing to enforce waivers of appeal, we enforce them only to the extent of the agreement."); Bridgeman v. United States, 229 F.3d 589, 591-92 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing cases and limiting extent of waiver to its explicit terms, despite the government’s effort to suggest a broad reading); United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir. 1999) (language of plea agreement waiving right to challenge sentence did not specificall…
language of plea agreement waiving right to challenge sentence did not specifically show that parties agreed that restitution award could not be reviewed
green
United States v. Napae Luta Young (2001)
United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 538 (8th Cir. 1999).
green
Bridgeman, Vance v. United States (2000)
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bridgeman’s sec. 2255 petition. /1 See, e.g., United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir. 1999) (language of plea agreement waiving right to challenge sentence did not specifically show that parties agreed that restitution award could not be reviewed); United States v. Smith, 160 F.3d 117, 120-21 (2d Cir. 1998) (plea agreement waived only right to appeal sentence; challenge to factual basis of plea was not foreclo…
language of plea agreement waiving right to challenge sentence did not specifically show that parties agreed that restitution award could not be reviewed
green
Ubiles v. People (2017)
United States v Black, 773 F.3d 1113 , 1115 n.2 (10th Cir. 2014); Lemke v. Ryan, 719 F.3d 1093, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 , 472 & n.6 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir. 1999).
green
United States v. Kinrys (2026)
See United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536 , 540 n.3 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
per curiam
green
United States v. Salas-Fernandez (2010)
Compare United States v. Oladimeji, 463 F.3d 152, 157 (2d Cir.2006) (allowing such an appeal), United States v. Behrman, 235 F.3d 1049, 1052 (7th Cir.2000) (same), United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539 (8th Cir.1999) (same), and United States v. Phillips, 174 F.3d 1074, 1075 (9th Cir.1999) (same), with United States v. Perez, 514 F.3d 296, 298 (3d Cir.2007) (barring such an appeal), and United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490, 497 (4th Cir.2006) (same).
green
United States v. Scott Maurer (2000)
Accord United States v. Cupit, 169 F.3d 536, 539-40 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 149 , 145 L.Ed.2d 126 (1999).