green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
50.2 score
“organizing the importation, however, is not the same as organizing other conspirators ...”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Mejia
United States v. Mares, 940 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir.1991); but see United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103-04 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1120 , 114 S.Ct. 1075 , 127 L.Ed.2d 392 (1994) (relating that the standard of review for prosecutorial comment on a defendant's silence is unclear, but finding that the prosecutor’s comments were permissible under either de novo or abuse of discretion review). .
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Milton Zucker Mende
United States v. Mares, 940 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir.1991); but see U.S. v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103-04 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1075 , 127 L.Ed.2d 392 (1994).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Jack Townsend
United States v. Mares, 940 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir.1991); but see United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103-04 (9th Cir.1993) (unclear whether standard of review de novo or abuse of discretion), petition for cert. filed, --- U.S.L.W. ---- (U.S. Nov. 3, 1993) (No. 93-6625). 24 We must determine whether the prosecutor's comments were such that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Apolonio Huerta
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
organizing the importation, however, is not the same as organizing other conspirators ...
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington, V Justin Moses And Aimee Moses
United States v. Mayfield, 189 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 1993). ¶35 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Under the confrontation clause, out-of-court testimonial statements by witnesses are barred unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington v. Michael Kerby And Jeffrey Strickland
App. 894 , 901 -02, 34 P.3d 241 ( 2001) ( citing United States v. Mayfield, 189 F. 3d 895, 899 ( 9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hoac, 990 F. 2d 1099, 1105 ( 9th Cir. 1993)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Whitney
Under this circuit’s clear articulation of § 3Bl.l(c), “even a defendant with an important role in an offense” cannot receive an enhancement unless there is also a “showing that the defendant had control over others.” United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 717 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation omitted). 6 This renders conduct which may have been integral to the success of the criminal enterprise, see United States v. Harper, 33 F.3d 1143, 1151 (9th Cir.1994), or conduct that reflects a high degree of culpability, United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1111 (9th Cir.1993), in…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ardoin
Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208, 211 ; Mason v. Yarborough, 447 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 2006) (Richardson ‘specifically exempts a statement, not incriminating on its face, that implicates the defendant only in connection to other admitted evidence’); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 1993) (’a codefendant’s statement that does not incriminate the defendant unless linked with other evidence introduced at trial does not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights’).” (Gomez-Perez v. McDonald (E.D.Cal. 2011) 2011 U.S.Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Higinio Tafolla-Gonzalez
However, we have held that “a co-defendant’s statement that does not incriminate the defendant unless linked with other evidence introduced at trial does not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.” United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Scaggs
See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208-09 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105-07 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Melendez v. Walker
The admission of Rodriguez’s redacted statement did not violate Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), because the statement only incriminated Melendez when “linked with other evidence introduced at trial.” United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Melendez v. Walker
The admission of Rodriguez’s redacted statement did not violate Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), because the statement only incriminated Melendez when “linked with other evidence introduced at trial.” United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lujan
See, e.g., United States v. Vega Molina, 407 F.3d 511, 519-21 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that non-testifying co-defendant’s redacted confession, describing crimes in detail, acknowledging his participation in them, but using terms such as “other individuals” or “another person” when mentioning his co-defendants, was not so powerfully incriminating to bring Bruton proscription to bear); United States v. Logan, 210 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir.2000) (determining there was no Sixth Amendment violation where officer testified that co-defendant said that he and “another individual” had planned…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Prieta-Quezada
Such downward adjustments are infrequently granted, see United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105-06 (9th Cir.1993), and should be reserved for defendants “substantially less culpable than [their] co-participants,” United States v. Benitez, 34 F.3d 1489, 1498 (9th Cir.1994) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CFM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Company
“Otherwise admissible expert testimony may be excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or undue delay.” United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hamilton
Cf. United States v. Avila, 95 F.3d 887, 889-90 (9th Cir.1996) (applying § 3Bl.l(a)); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1111 (9th Cir.1993) (involving § 3Bl.l(c)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hamilton
Cf. United States v. Avila, 95 F.3d 887, 889-90 (9th Cir.1996) (applying § 3131.1(a)); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1111 (9th Cir.1993) (involving § 3131.1(c)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Williams
United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.1993); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ball
(2×)
In decisions handed down after the five cases the Court cites here, in both published and unpublished opinions, various panels of the Ninth Circuit, acknowledging contradictory cases, have stated that "[t]he standard of review for prosecutorial comment on a defendant's failure to testify or post-arrest silence is unclear. " See, e.g., United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1993) (citing contradictory cases) (emphasis added); United States v. Holub, 89 F.3d 847 (table), 1996 WL 344619 (9th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Recreational Developments of Phoenix, Inc. v. City of Phoenix
See Fed.R.Evid. 403; Martincic v. Urban Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh, 844 F.Supp. 1073, 1075-76 (W.D.Pa.1994) (excluding statistical report as prejudicial under Rule 403 where expert “offered no semblance of statistical analysis that would breathe life into his bare numbers”); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that even admissible expert testimony is properly excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or undue delay”); United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Allen Ray Jordan
Un ited States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1111 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Frankhauser, 80 F.3d 641, 655 (1st Cir.1996) (vacating sentence enhancement for leadership role and explaining that “[t]he court must focus on what the defendant did, in relation to at least one other participant, in the commission of the offense.” (emphasis original)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tran
See United States v. Harper, 33 F.3d 1143, 1150-51 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110-1111 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jinro America Inc. v. Secure Investments, Inc.
Evid. 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or undue delay." United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 1993). 85 A number of cases have dealt with the problem of testimony that either directly or indirectly seeks to link a defendant's conduct to that which is said to be typical of a particular racial, ethnic group or nationality.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis
(2×)
See Bruton, 391 U.S. at 135-36 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ; Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (limiting Bru-ton to statements that are incriminating on their face or expressly incriminating since statements that only become incriminating when linked with other evidence are inherently less prejudicial); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that “a codefendant’s statement that does not incriminate the defendant unless linked with other evidence introduced at trial does not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Larry
CO-DEFENDANTS' REDACTED STATEMENTS BRUTON We review de novo alleged violations of the confrontation clause. [1] United States v. Mayfield, 189 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir., 1999), United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir., 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jinro America Inc. v. Secure Investments, Inc.
“Otherwise admissible expert testimony may be excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or undue delay.” United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis
(2×)
See Bruton, 391 U.S. at 135-36 ; Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208 (1987) (limiting Bruton to statements that are incriminating on their face or expressly incriminating since statements that only become incriminating when linked with other evidence are inherently less prejudicial); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting that "a co-defendant's statement that does not incriminate the defendant unless linked with other evidence introduced at trial does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Larry
Codefendants’ Redacted Statements — Bruton We review de novo alleged violations of the confrontation clause. 2 United States v. Mayfield, 189 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rios-Osuna
In order to apply this provision, “the defendant must have exercised some control over others involved in the commission of the offense or he must have been responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.” United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Frazier v. Mitchell
United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099,1104 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Louis Syrax, AKA Bob Johnson, AKA Robert L. Syrax
The enhancement may be applied if the government “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant exercised some control over others involved in the commission of the offense or [was] responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.” United States v. Alonso, 48 F.3d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.1993)) (alteration in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Benjamin M. Logan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., United States v. Verduzco-Martinez, 186 F.3d 1208, 1212-15 (10th Cir. 1999); United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 2000 WL 197669 , 2000 WL 197670 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2000); United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1215-17 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1082 , 517 U.S. 1158 (1996); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105-07 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1120 (1994); United States v. Williams, 936 F.2d 698, 700-01 (2d Cir. 1991); and United States v. Vogt, 910 F.2d 1184, 1191-92 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1083 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Benjamin Matthew Logan, Also Known as Matt Logan
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Verduzco-Martinez, 186 F.3d 1208, 1212-15 (10th Cir.1999); United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 387-88 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1179 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1086 (2000), - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1180 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1086 (2000); United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1215-17 (6th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1082 , 116 S.Ct. 795 , 133 L.Ed.2d 744 (1996); 517 U.S. 1158 , 116 S.Ct. 1548 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105-07 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1120 , 114 S.Ct. 1075 , 127 L.Ed.2d 392 (1994); United Stat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lopez-Sandoval
In United States v. Ramos-Oseguera, 120 F.3d 1028, 1038 (9th Cir.1997), the defendant appealed an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c), arguing that “the court’s reliance on the importance of her role as a translator was inadequate to support a finding that she was a manager or supervisor.” We acknowledged that “[without a showing that the defendant had control over others, even a defendant with an important role in an offense cannot be deemed a manager.” Id. (citing United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110-11 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that unless he controlled or organized others,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1998
In United States v. Ramos-Oseguera, 120 F.3d 1028, 1038 (9th Cir.1997), the defendant appealed an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), arguing that "the court's reliance on the importance of her role as a translator was inadequate to support a finding that she was a manager or supervisor." We acknowledged that "[w]ithout a showing that the defendant had control over others, even a defendant with an important role in an offense cannot be deemed a manager." Id. (citing United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110-11 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that unless he controlled or organized others, a defend…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert E. Ladum Ronald D. Van Vliet Daniel Hong Echols Doyle Ford David C. Grigonis James R. Weaver
(2×)
United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105-06 (9th Cir.1993). 82 Grigonis argues that his only involvement in the conspiracy was as the property owner of the buildings in which the second-hand stores were housed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gene Marion Lefave
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Settled circuit precedent dictates that an adjustment pursuant to § 3B1.1(c) "is justified when the government shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant 'exercised some control over others involved in the commission of the offense or [was] responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.' " United States v. Alonso, 48 F.3d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Mares-Molina, 913 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir.1990))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gabriel Heredia-Preciado
Further, the minor-participant downward adjustment "is to be used infrequently and only in exceptional circumstances." Davis at 1436 (citing United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir.1993)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Floyd Daverlin Osborne
United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105-06 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Valdez-Arieta
Circuit cites United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110-11 (9th Cir.1993); Litchfield, 959 F.2d at 1522-23 ; United States v. Rowley, 975 F.2d 1357, 1364 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Belletiere, 971 F.2d 961, 969-70 (3rd Cir.1992); and United States v. DeCicco, 899 F.2d 1531, 1535 (7th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Uriel Hernandez, Jr.
As a result, there was no error related to a reference to Hernandez's failure to testify. 20 Moreover, the Government's comments were not extensive nor is there evidence supporting an acquittal: two requirements for a reversal. "[R]eversal is warranted only where such comment is extensive, where an inference of guilt from silence is stressed to the jury as a basis for the conviction, and where there is evidence that could have supported acquittal." United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir.1993); see also Greer v. United States, 483 U.S. 756, 764 (1987) (declining to find Doyle error…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tomas Bernabe-Valencia, United States of America v. Fermin Inda-Parra, AKA Fermin Inda
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
To merit an upward adjustment under § 3B1.1(c), Bernabe-Valencia "must have exercised some control over others involved in the commission of the offense or [was] responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime." See United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.1993). (citation and internal quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jesus Almaguer, A/K/A Baby
A defendant must have authority over other people in order to qualify for this role enhancement: "Without a showing that the defendant had control over others, even a defendant with an important role in an offense cannot be deemed a manager." United States v. Ramos-Oseguera, 1997 WL 422992 , * 9 (9th Cir. July 30, 1997), citing United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110-11 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1997
United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110-11 (9th Cir.1993). 64 While the district court did primarily discuss the importance of Reyes's role, it also made reference to the "control that she did have over others." A court's general findings can be sufficient to uphold an upward departure for a supervisor role.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ramos-Oseguera
United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110-11 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oscar Humberto Gonzalez
The defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, not only was he "less culpable than most other participants," see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) & comment. (n.3); United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir.1993), but that his role in the crime makes him " 'substantially less culpable than the average participant,' " see Benitez, 34 F.3d at 1497-98 (alteration in original) (quoting § 3B1.2, comment. (backg'd.)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bernardo Ramirez-Cruz
Cf. United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1993) (concluding expert testimony properly excluded under Rule 403 when expert had little familiarity with witness), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1120 (1994). 7 Further, the district court allowed Ramirez-Cruz to question the witnesses on the matrilineal structure. 8 B.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. William Williams
Adjustment Based upon Williams' Role in the Offense Conduct ( § 3B1.1(c)) To be eligible for a two-level upward adjustment of his offense level under § 3B1.1(c) of the guidelines, Williams " 'must have exercised some control over others involved in the commission of the offense or he must have been responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.' " United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Mares-Molina, 913 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotations omitted)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1120 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wold v. Red Lion Inn
United States v. Von Willie, 59 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir.1995). 38 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in he form of an opinion or otherwise." FRE 702; United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1075 (1994). 39 Probable cause was not an issue at trial because the magistrate judge had already found th…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nicolas Ortiz-Lizola
United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1105-1106 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1120 , 114 S.Ct. 1075 , 127 L.Ed.2d 392 (1994).
In Re Tucson Industrial Partners, Debtor. Tucson Industrial Partners
v.
Sears Savings Bank
v.
Sears Savings Bank
91-16582.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 27, 1993.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
In re TUCSON INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS, Debtor.
TUCSON INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS, Appellant,
v.
SEARS SAVINGS BANK, Appellee.
No. 91-16582.
BAP No. AZ-88-1728-JVR.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 27, 1993.
Before FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~1099]1
This case is removed from oral argument calendar scheduled for February 3, 1993.
[*~1110]2
The appeal in this case is dismissed as moot and the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, In re Tucson Industrial Partners, 129 B.R. 614 (Bankr. 9th Cir.1991), is vacated in light of the fact that the settlement agreement was reached by the parties before the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision was issued.