green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
21.6 score
“we hold that a finding that a defendant has previously engaged in fencing activities is not a prerequisite for offense level enhancement under former sentencing guideline section 2b1.2(b)(3)(a).”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
examined
Cited "but see"
United States v. John L. St. Cyr
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
But cf. Esquivel, 919 F.2d at 957 (implicitly rejecting a regularity requirement in finding a new, but very sophisticated, fencing operation to be a business).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Jamie Reay MacKay A/K/A Kevin Neil Carpenter
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
we hold that a finding that a defendant has previously engaged in fencing activities is not a prerequisite for offense level enhancement under former sentencing guideline section 2b1.2(b)(3)(a).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Mackay
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
we hold that a finding that a defendant has previously engaged in fencing activities is not a prerequisite for offense level enhancement under former sentencing guideline section 2b1.2(b)(3)(a).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sharon Saunders
See, e.g., United States v. Cottman, 142 F.3d 160, 166 (3d Cir.1998); Sutton, 77 F.3d at 94 (‘“A thief need not know the length of his fence’s resume to be encouraged to commit other crimes.... ’ ”); Mackay, 33 F.3d at 497 ; United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 961 (5th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Myat Maung
See Warshawsky, 20 F.3d at 214 ; United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959-60 (5th Cir.1990); Bras lawsky, 913 F.2d at 468 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Myers
See also United States v. Mackay, 33 F.3d 489, 497 (5th Cir.1994) (upholding enhancement under former § 2B1.2(b)(4)(A) because there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that the defendant bought stolen item from another person, even though there was evidence which contradicted that finding); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960 (5th Cir.1990) (“it is because someone else stole the shoes sold by Esquivel that ... the fencing operation falls within the intended purview of the background to and text of former section 2B1.2(b)(3)(A).”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cottman
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. McMinn, 103 F.3d 216, 219-21 (1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214-15 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960 (5th Cir. 1990).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stanley Cottman
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. McMinn, 103 F.3d 216, 219-21 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214-15 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960 (5th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cottman
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. McMinn, 103 F.3d 216, 219-21 (1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214-15 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960 (5th Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McMinn
See, e.g., Sutton, 77 F.3d at 94 ; United States v. Zuniga, 66 F.3d 225, 229 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214-15 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. King, 21 F.3d 1302 , 1303 n. 2 (3d Cir.1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir.1990); see also St.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McMinn
See, e.g., Sutton, 77 F.3d at 94 ; ___ ____ ______ United States v. Zuniga, 66 F.3d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1995); United _____________ ______ ______ States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214-15 (6th Cir. 1994); ______ __________ United States v. King, 21 F.3d 1302 , 1303 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994); _____________ ____ United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir. 1990); see _____________ ________ ___ also St.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terry Al Collins
See United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir. 1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terry A. Collins
See United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terri A. Payseno
See United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir. 1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terri A. Payseno
See United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sutton
United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir.1990) (enhancement docs not apply to a defendant who sells property that he himself has stolen).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant
United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 214 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir.1990) (enhancement does not apply to a defendant who sells property that he himself has stolen).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Leroy Warshawsky (93-1345) Ira Warshawsky (93-1346) and Ted Warshawsky (93-1473)
A person “in the business of receiving and selling stolen property” is a person once referred to less flatteringly as a “fence.” United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 959 (5th Cir.1990) (section 2B1.2(b)(4)(A) “refers to a person engaged in what are generally known as fencing operations”); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir.1990) (“The common understanding of a person in the business of receiving and selling stolen property is a professional fence_”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert L. King
(2×)
This is true regardless of “the length of [the] fence’s resume.” United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960 (5th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rosa
Cf. United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960-61 (5th Cir.1990) (in-the-business increase may be appropriate even if the defendant had never received stolen goods prior to the charged transactions).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rosa
Cf. United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960-61 (5th Cir.1990) (in-the-business increase may be appropriate even if the defendant had never received stolen goods prior to the charged transactions).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. St. Cyr
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., United States v. Connor, 950 F.2d 1267, 1275 (7th Cir. ___ ____ _____________ ______ 1991) (stressing the importance of past criminality to an ITB determination); Esquivel, 919 F.2d at 960 (assessing the ________ characteristics of defendant's fencing operation and finding it sufficiently businesslike); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d _____________ __________ 466, 466 (7th Cir. 1990) (finding that the defendant was not "in the business" where he sold only goods that he, himself, had stolen). 9 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wood v. State
See United States v. Vontsteen, 910 F.2d 187, 194 (5th Cir.), reh. granted, 919 F.2d 957 (1990): "The court's authority to retrofit a sentence for multicount convictions after some are affirmed, and others are reversed looms as an integral component of the trial judge's broad sentencing discretion." [1] Section 944.275, Fla. Stat. (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Vigil
The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits applied a “fence test,” in which “the sentencing courts merely examine[] the defendant’s operation to determine: (1) if stolen property was bought and sold, and (2) if the stolen property transactions encouraged others to commit property crimes.” Warshawsky, 20 F.3d at 215 ; see also United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960 (5th Cir.1990); Braslawsky, 913 F.2d at 468 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mario Salemi
See also United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 960-61 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Braslawsky, 913 F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rowland
Compare United States v. Connor, 950 F.2d 1267, 1275 (7th Cir.1991) (enhancement applies only to those who have previously engaged in significant illegal conduct similar to the instant offense) with United States v. Esquivel, 919 F.2d 957, 961 (5th Cir.1990) (finding that defendant previously engaged in fencing activities not a prerequisite to enhancement).
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gerald VONTSTEEN, A/K/A Skip Vontsteen, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Gerald VONTSTEEN, A/K/A Skip Vontsteen, Defendant-Appellant
89-2745.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 11, 1990.
H. Michael Sokolow, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Paula C. Offenhauser, Asst. U.S. Atty., Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Clark, Gee, Politz, King, Johnson, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale.
Published
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion August 17, 1990, 5 Cir., 1990, 910 F.2d 187)
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.