United States v. Raymond Richards, 646 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Raymond Richards, 646 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 · …bsent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues that are first presented in an application for rehearing at p. 963 ✓
14 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Daniel Lamar Hatcher (ca11, 2020-09-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Daniel Lamar Hatcher
11th Cir. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
generally, an appellate court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Levy
11th Cir. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
bsent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues that are first presented in an application for rehearing
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Raphael R. Levy
11th Cir. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
bsent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues that are first presented in an application for rehearing
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hector Martinez Jorge Gomez Humberto Gallo
11th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Richards, 646 F.2d 962, 963 (5th Cir.1981) (“[Ajbsent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues that are first presented in an application for rehearing.”); U.S. v. Sutherland, 428 F.2d 1152, 1158 (5th Cir.1970) (“Having tried and appealed its case on one theory, an unsuccessful party may not then use a petition for rehearing as a device to test a new theory.”), appeal after remand, 463 F.2d 641 (5th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baumann v. Savers Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n
11th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Formby v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 904 F.2d 627, 634 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Richards, 646 F.2d 962, 963 (5th Cir. June 1981), 3 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097 , 102 S.Ct. 669 , 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981); Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116, 125 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baumann v. Savers Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.
11th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Formby v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 904 F.2d 627, 634 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Richards, 646 F.2d 962, 963 (5th Cir. June 1981), 3 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097 , 102 S.Ct. 669 , 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981); Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116, 125 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Fiallo-Jacome
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
An appellant in a criminal case may not raise an issue for the first time in a reply appellate brief, United States v. Benz, 740 F.2d 903, 916 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 817 , 106 S.Ct. 62 , 88 L.Ed.2d 51 (1985), or for the first time in a petition for rehearing by an appellate court, United States v. Richards, 646 F.2d 962, 963 (5th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Thompson, Steven Barfield, and Kim Williams
11th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 208-11 , 101 S.Ct. 1642, 1646-47 , 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981), on remand, 664 F.2d 1242, 1243 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Richards, 646 F.2d 962, 963 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097 , 102 S.Ct. 669 , 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981); United States v. Hicks, 624 F.2d 32, 34 (5th Cir. 1981).
cited Cited "see" Sun Cha Byrd v. Tommy Clark, Clifford Black, Larry Collins, Joey Whitley, Drew Solomon, and the City of Fitzgerald, Georgia
11th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765, 770 (5th Cir.) reh’g denied, 646 F.2d 962 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097 , 102 S.Ct. 669 , 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Ramon Bustos-Guzman, Pedro Benara-Agamez, Luis Enrique Diaz-Nunoz, Victor Manuel Barrantes
11th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Richards, 646 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 669 , 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981). 1 In addition, there was ample circumstantial evidence to support venue in the Southern District of Florida.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Guy James Construction Company, Cross-Appellant v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Cross-Appellee
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e. g., United States v. Richards, 646 F.2d 962, 963 (5th Cir. 1981); Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 441 (5th Cir. 1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Raymond RICHARDS, Defendant-Appellant
78-5728.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 1, 1981.
646 F.2d 962
Milton E. Grusmark, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Linda Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Godbold, Gee, Rubin.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 55%
PER CURIAM:

In his application for rehearing, Richards questions the statutory authority of the DEA agents to make a warrantless extended border search. Whether the search was valid as a border search was an issue raised in the trial court, in the briefs filed in this Court and before the panel on oral argument. The district court, relying in part on the concept of border searches, upheld the warrantless search. Similarly, the panel opinion upheld the search as a valid extended border search. At no time before filing his application for rehearing did Richards question the statutory authority of the DEA agents to conduct a border search.

Generally, an appellate court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. In the Matter of Novak, 639 F.2d 1274, 1276 (5th Cir. 1981). Moreover, absent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues that are first presented in an application for rehearing. Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Sutherland, 428 F.2d 1152, 1158 (1970), appeal after remand, 463 F.2d 641 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1078, 93 S.Ct. 698, 34 L.Ed.2d 668 (1977) (“Having tried and appealed its case on one theory, an unsuccessful party may not then use a petition for «rehearing as a device to test a new theory.”) In light of the repeated opportunities to raise the issue of the statutory validity of the search and the nature of the claim, no exceptional circumstances are here presented.

Therefore, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

GODBOLD, Chief Judge, dissents.