United States v. Richard Hicks (2004)

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 530 (5th Cir. 2004).

Ordinary plain-error review is therefore the correct standard. 50 U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B). 51 United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 530 (5th Cir. 2004). 52 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (a). 53 Id. 54 18 U.S.C. § 1112 (a). 55 Hicks, 389 F.3d at 530 (citing United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549 , 551–52 (5th Cir. 1989)). 13 Case: 24-10633 Document: 90-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/12/2026 No. 24-10633 intent to kill; (2) intent to do serious bodily injury; and (3) extreme recklessness and …

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 535 (5th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 522 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993)).

We held that the police could reasonably suspect that ‘additional confederates might be concealed inside the darkened trailer with the missing shotgun,’ thus justifying a warrantless protective sweep of the trailer.” (quoting McGeehan, 526 F.2d at 399 )). 48 Newman, 472 F.3d at 237 ; United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 527 (5th Cir. 2004). 18 Case: 23-50461 Document: 105-1 Page: 19 Date Filed: 01/13/2025 No. 23-50461 enforcement officers as to the danger of a particular si…

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 529 (5th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2015); see United States v. Hicks, 6 Case: 23-30444 Document: 95-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/31/2024 No. 23-30444 389 F.3d 514, 529 (5th Cir. 2004) (reviewing de novo the district court’s application of the cross-reference provisions of § 2K2.1(c)).

“This court reviews a district court’s factual findings during sentencing for clear error and its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines, including its application of the cross-reference provisions of § 2K2.1(c), de novo.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 529 (5th Cir. 2004). “[F]acts relevant to sentencing must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Alfaro, 30 F.4th 514, 518 (5th Cir. 2022).

A. Generally, “this court reviews jury instructions for abuse of discretion and harmless error.” 32 “However, when a defendant fails to object to jury instructions, we review for plain error.” 33 Since neither Bubu nor Capistrano objected to the jury instructions, we review for plain error. 34 To establish plain error, one must show that: “(1) the district court erred, (2) the error was clear or obvious, (3) the error affected his substantial rights, and (4) this court shoul…

Accordingly, “[t]o qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)); see United States v. Chisley, No. 22-40584, 2023 WL 4864811 , at *1 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, …

Accordingly, “[t]o qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)); see United States v. Chisley, No. 22-40584, 2023 WL 4864811 , at *1 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, …

Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir.1998). 38 United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 525 (5th Cir. 2004). 39 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 . 40 FED.

Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir.1998). 44 United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 525 (5th Cir. 2004). 45 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 . 46 FED.

Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir.1998). 55 United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 525 (5th Cir. 2004). 56 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 . 57 FED.

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

Evid. 702. 25 Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 881 (5th Cir. 2013)(citation modified). 26 U.S. v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151 (1999)(discussing witnesses whose expertise is based purely on experience). 27 Fed.

Evid. 702. 27 Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 881 (5th Cir. 2013)(citation modified). 28 U.S. v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151 (1999)(discussing witnesses whose expertise is based purely on experience). 29 Fed.

The Fifth Circuit makes clear that “to qualify as an expert, the witness must have such knowledge or experience in his field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F. 3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation modified) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F. 2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 525 (Sth Cir. 2004). il.

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 525 (Sth Cir. 2004). il.

United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 525 (Sth Cir. 2004).

Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir.1998) (en banc). 7 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93, 113 S.Ct. 2786 . 8United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation, alterations, and internal quotations omitted). knowledge, skill, training, or education, may provide a sufficient basis for expert testimony.”9 “An expert witness is not strictly confined to his area or practice but may testify concerning related applications” because an expert’s lack of specialization goes to…

To be qualified an expert “witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1022 (2006).

“To qualify as an expert, the witness must have such knowledge or experience in his field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’ ” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

Tex. 2024) (quoting Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 881 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004)) (additional citations and quotation marks omitted).

To be qualified as an expert, the witness “must have knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). “[E]xpert testimony is admissible only if it is both relevant and reliable.” Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2002).

See United States v. Brown, 973 F.3d 667 , 704 (7th Cir. 2020) (noting that the AFTE “methodology used by the government’s witnesses had been ‘almost uniformly accepted by federal courts’”); United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 526 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he matching of spent shell casings to the weapon that fired them has been a recognized method of ballistics testing in this circuit for decades.”); United States v. Monteiro, 407 F. Supp. 2d 351, 364 (D.

Tex. Mar. 25, 2024) (quoting Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 881 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004)) (additional citations and quotation marks omitted).

To qualify as an expert, “the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004).

To qualify as an expert, “the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004).

“To qualify as an expert, the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).

“To qualify as an expert, the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).

“To qualify as an expert, the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).

Citing Cooper v. Harris, Defendants argue that “tlhe plaintiff may make the required showing through ‘direct evidence’ of legislative intent, ‘circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and demographics,’ or a mix of both.” Defendants argue that Johnson may “draw inferences from ‘circumstantial’ idicia of intent” to opine that Mr. _ 23 Allen v. Milligan, 599 US 1, 30-31 (2023) (emphasis added) 24 Moyer v. Siemens Vai Services, LLC, 2013 WL 12231281 , at *2 (E.D.La., 2013)…

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

No. 52. aid the trier in his search for truth.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in his field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“Rule 702 charges trial courts to act as gate-keepers, and to make a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 525 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).

With respect to cancers, Cook notes that “[m]ost of the studies that have been done . . . show increased prevalence in acute symptoms . . . .” However, he also notes that, because of the differing latency periods for various cancers, “[a]t this time there are no epidemiology studies that show exposures to crude oil, weathered crude oil, or dispersants cause cancer.” Id. at 99–102. trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004) (quo…