The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 28
CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 28.35

28.35 Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation.—

(1)(a) The Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation is created as a public corporation organized to perform the functions specified in this section and s. 28.36. All clerks of the circuit court shall be members of the corporation and hold their position and authority in an ex officio capacity. The functions assigned to the corporation shall be performed by an executive council pursuant to the plan of operation approved by the members.

(b)1. The executive council shall be composed of eight clerks of the court elected by the clerks of the courts for a term of 2 years, with two clerks from counties with a population of fewer than 100,000, two clerks from counties with a population of at least 100,000 but fewer than 500,000, two clerks from counties with a population of at least 500,000 but fewer than 1 million, and two clerks from counties with a population of 1 million or more. The executive council shall also include, as ex officio members, a designee of the President of the Senate and a designee of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall designate one additional member to represent the state courts system.

2. Members of the executive council of the corporation are subject to ss. 112.313(1)-(8), (10), (12), and (15); 112.3135; and 112.3143(2). For purposes of applying ss. 112.313(1)-(8), (10), (12), and (15); 112.3135; and 112.3143(2) to activities of executive council members, members shall be considered public officers and the corporation shall be considered the members’ agency.

(c) The corporation shall be considered a political subdivision of the state and shall be exempt from the corporate income tax. The corporation is not subject to chapter 120.

(d) The functions assigned to the corporation under this section and ss. 28.36 and 28.37 are considered to be for a valid public purpose.

(2) The duties of the corporation shall include the following:

(a) Adopting a plan of operation including a detailed budget for the corporation.

(b) Conducting the election of an executive council as required in paragraph (1)(b).

(c)1. Recommending to the Legislature changes in the amounts and distribution of the various court-related fines, fees, service charges, and costs established by law to ensure reasonable and adequate funding of the clerks of the court in the performance of their court-related functions.

2. If the number of judges under s. 26.031 or s. 34.022 is increased, the corporation shall:

a. Develop a formula to be used to estimate the total cost associated with clerk support for circuit and county judges statewide.

b. Make a recommendation for consideration by the Legislature on any need for additional funding using the formula approved in sub-subparagraph a.

(d) Developing and certifying a uniform system of workload measures and applicable workload standards for court-related functions as developed by the corporation and clerk workload performance in meeting the workload performance standards. These workload measures and workload performance standards shall be designed to facilitate an objective determination of the performance of each clerk in accordance with minimum standards for fiscal management, operational efficiency, and effective collection of fines, fees, service charges, and court costs. The corporation shall develop the workload measures and workload performance standards in consultation with the Legislature. When the corporation finds a clerk has not met the workload performance standards, the corporation shall identify the nature of each deficiency and any corrective action recommended and taken by the affected clerk of the court. For quarterly periods ending on the last day of March, June, September, and December of each year, the corporation shall notify the Legislature of any clerk not meeting workload performance standards and provide a copy of any corrective action plans. Such notifications must be submitted no later than 45 days after the end of the preceding quarterly period. As used in this subsection, the term:

1. “Workload measures” means the measurement of the activities and frequency of the work required for the clerk to adequately perform the court-related duties of the office as defined by the membership of the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation.

2. “Workload performance standards” means the standards developed to measure the timeliness and effectiveness of the activities that are accomplished by the clerk in the performance of the court-related duties of the office as defined by the membership of the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation.

(e) Entering into a contract with the Department of Financial Services for the department to audit the court-related expenditures of individual clerks pursuant to s. 17.03.

(f) Approving the proposed budgets submitted by clerks of the court pursuant to s. 28.36. The corporation must ensure that the total combined budgets of the clerks of the court do not exceed the total estimated revenues from fees, service charges, court costs, and fines for court-related functions available for court-related expenditures as determined by the most recent Revenue Estimating Conference, plus the total of unspent budgeted funds for court-related functions carried forward by the clerks of the court from the previous county fiscal year, plus the balance of funds remaining in the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund after the transfer of funds to the General Revenue Fund required pursuant to s. 28.37(4)(b), and plus any appropriations for court-related functions. The corporation may amend any individual clerk of the court budget to ensure compliance with this paragraph and must consider performance measures, workload performance standards, workload measures, and expense data before modifying the budget. As part of this process, the corporation shall:

1. Calculate the minimum amount of revenue necessary for each clerk of the court to efficiently perform the list of court-related functions specified in paragraph (3)(a). The corporation shall apply the workload measures appropriate for determining the individual level of review required to fund the clerk’s budget.

2. Prepare a cost comparison of similarly situated clerks of the court, based on county population and numbers of filings, using the standard list of court-related functions specified in paragraph (3)(a).

3. Conduct an annual base budget review and an annual budget exercise examining the total budget of each clerk of the court. The review shall examine revenues from all sources, expenses of court-related functions, and expenses of noncourt-related functions as necessary to determine that court-related revenues are not being used for noncourt-related purposes. The review and exercise shall identify potential targeted budget reductions in the percentage amount provided in Schedule VIII-B of the state’s previous year’s legislative budget instructions, as referenced in s. 216.023(3), or an equivalent schedule or instruction as may be adopted by the Legislature.

4. Identify those proposed budgets containing funding for items not included on the standard list of court-related functions specified in paragraph (3)(a).

5. Identify those clerks projected to have court-related revenues insufficient to fund their anticipated court-related expenditures.

6. Use revenue estimates based on the official estimate for funds from fees, service charges, court costs, and fines for court-related functions accruing to the clerks of the court made by the Revenue Estimating Conference, as well as any unspent budgeted funds for court-related functions carried forward by the clerks of the court from the previous county fiscal year and the balance of funds remaining in the Clerks of the Court Trust Fund after the transfer of funds to the General Revenue Fund required pursuant to s. 28.37(4)(b), plus any appropriations for the purpose of funding court-related functions.

7. Identify pay and benefit increases in any proposed clerk budget, including, but not limited to, cost of living increases, merit increases, and bonuses.

8. Identify increases in anticipated expenditures in any clerk budget that exceeds the current year budget by more than 3 percent.

9. Identify the budget of any clerk which exceeds the average budget of similarly situated clerks by more than 10 percent.

For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “unspent budgeted funds for court-related functions” means undisbursed funds included in the clerks of the courts budgets for court-related functions established pursuant to this section and s. 28.36.

(g) Developing and conducting clerk education programs.

(h) Preparing and submitting a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairs of the legislative appropriations committees by January 1 of each year on the operations and activities of the corporation and detailing the budget development for the clerks of the court and the end-of-year reconciliation of actual expenditures versus projected expenditures for each clerk of court.

(i) Annually preparing a budget request which, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 216 and in accordance with s. 216.351, provides the anticipated amount necessary for reimbursement pursuant to s. 40.29(6). The request for the anticipated reimbursement amount shall be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by the Justice Administrative Commission. Such request is not subject to change by the Justice Administrative Commission, except for technical changes necessary to conform to the legislative budget instructions, and shall be submitted to the Governor for transmittal to the Legislature.

(3)(a) The list of court-related functions that clerks may fund from filing fees, service charges, court costs, and fines is limited to those functions expressly authorized by law or court rule. Those functions include the following: case maintenance; records management; court preparation and attendance; processing the assignment, reopening, and reassignment of cases; processing of appeals; collection and distribution of fines, fees, service charges, and court costs; processing of bond forfeiture payments; data collection and reporting; determinations of indigent status; and paying reasonable administrative support costs to enable the clerk of the court to carry out these court-related functions.

(b) The list of court-related functions that clerks may not fund from filing fees, service charges, costs, and fines includes:

1. Those functions not specified within paragraph (a).

2. Functions assigned by administrative orders which are not required for the clerk to perform the functions in paragraph (a).

3. Enhanced levels of service which are not required for the clerk to perform the functions in paragraph (a).

4. Functions identified as local requirements in law or local optional programs.

(4) The corporation shall be funded pursuant to a contract with the Chief Financial Officer. Funds shall be provided to the Chief Financial Officer for such purpose as appropriated by general law. Such funds shall be available to the corporation for the performance of the duties and responsibilities set forth in this section. The corporation shall participate in the Florida Retirement System for its eligible employees as provided in chapter 121. The corporation may hire staff and pay other expenses from such funds as necessary to perform the official duties and responsibilities of the corporation as described in this section.

(5) Certified public accountants conducting audits of counties pursuant to s. 218.39 shall report, as part of the audit, whether the clerks of the courts have complied with the requirements of this section and s. 28.36. In addition, each clerk of court shall forward a copy of the financial audit to the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation. The Auditor General shall develop a compliance supplement for the audit of compliance with the budgets and applicable workload performance standards certified by the corporation.

History.—s. 36, ch. 2003-402; s. 23, ch. 2004-265; s. 2, ch. 2005-2; s. 2, ch. 2006-312; s. 9, ch. 2008-111; s. 3, ch. 2009-204; s. 3, ch. 2011-52; s. 6, ch. 2013-44; s. 1, ch. 2014-183; s. 3, ch. 2017-126; s. 4, ch. 2019-15; s. 2, ch. 2019-58; s. 8, ch. 2020-2; s. 5, ch. 2021-116; s. 2, ch. 2022-201.

F.S. 28.35 on Google Scholar

F.S. 28.35 on Casetext

Amendments to 28.35

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 28.35

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 28.35.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES v. A. HOPPER,, 934 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . through March, he sold one ounce of ice every day to the defendant for $ 1,100. (28 days [February] x 28.35 . . . through March, he sold one ounce of ice every day to the defendant for $ 1,100. (28 days [February] x 28.35 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. FORMAN,, 273 So. 3d 223 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 28.35(2)(d), Fla. Stat.; see also Citizens for Strong Sch., Inc. v. Fla. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SMITH,, 379 F. Supp. 3d 543 (W.D. Va. 2019)

. . . responsible for 20-35 grams of cocaine base, and the PSR said he was responsible for at least one ounce (28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STANBACK,, 377 F. Supp. 3d 618 (W.D. Va. 2019)

. . . responsible for 20-35 grams of cocaine base, and the PSR said he was responsible for at least one ounce (28.35 . . .

RUBENSTEIN, v. INTERNATIONAL VALUE ADVISERS, LLC, IVA f k a, 363 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

. . . 35,046 $27.91 November 15, 2016 19,467 $27.84 November 16, 2016 22,053 $28.02 November 17, 2016 84,499 $28.35 . . .

L. HYLTON, a k a v. B. SESSIONS III,, 897 F.3d 57 (2nd Cir. 2018)

. . . We now hold that an ounce, or roughly 30 grams (28.35 in point of fact), is a "small amount" of marijuana . . . other, more intuitive reasons why the range 25 to 30 grams is deemed "small." (1) One ounce equals 28.35 . . .

CLAY, v. UNITED STATES, 311 F. Supp. 3d 911 (N.D. Ill. 2018)

. . . transactions with him since 2009, with two transactions for 63 grams and the rest of either an ounce (28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON,, 883 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2018)

. . . office totaled these transactions to arrive at 48 ounces of PCP, multiplied the number of ounces by 28.35 . . . parties eventually agreed that the proper weight attributable to PCP was 24.75 grams per ounce, not the 28.35 . . . calculation apparently was based on the probation office's assumption that one ounce of PCP weighs 28.35 . . . At other points in the hearing, however, the parties agreed that 28.35 grams was not the proper conversion . . .

UNITED STATES v. PONZO, a k a a k a P. a k a a k a a k a a k a, 853 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2017)

. . . prosecution-friendly vantage point— showed the following: Mele regularly sold one-ounce quantities (28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHEFFIELD,, 832 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

. . . addition, the jury heard that, because a DEA regulation prohibits the agency from accepting more than 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON,, 641 F. App'x 654 (8th Cir. 2016)

. . . crack cocaine that the Cl purchased from Johnson’s middleman at another controlled buy, as well as 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STANFIEL, III,, 635 F. App'x 494 (10th Cir. 2015)

. . . testimony 55 x .89 48.95 ounces of actual methamphetamine Conversion of ounces to kilograms 1 ounce = 28.35 . . . grams 48.95 x 28.35 1387.73 grains 1387.73 (calculated from testimony) + 135.9 (stipulated) 1523.63 . . . methamphetamine 1,000 grams = 1 kilogram 1523.63 / 1000 = 1.523 kilograms of methamphetamine . 48 x 28.35 . . .

CARTER, v. DOUMA,, 796 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . An ounce is equivalent to 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SANCHEZ, v. v., 789 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2015)

. . . Pruett, 501 F.3d 976, 985 (8th Cir.2007) (stating that "one ounce equals approximately 28.35 grams” and . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOYKIN,, 785 F.3d 1352 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . One ounce is equal to approximately 28.35 grams, which means Boykin had met the 50 gram threshold well . . .

UNITED STATES v. Ki CROWDER,, 591 F. App'x 269 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . Fort Worth area, an “ounce” of heroin is actually 25 grams, as opposed to the proper metric measure, 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. VANN,, 593 F. App'x 782 (10th Cir. 2014)

. . . In part, he mistakenly treated an ounce as 28 grams rather than 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ETIENNE,, 772 F.3d 907 (1st Cir. 2014)

. . . As one ounce is approximately 28.35 grams, Smith obtained approximately half-an-ounce of crack on July . . .

UNITED STATES v. AREYANES, a k a a k a v., 587 F. App'x 55 (4th Cir. 2014)

. . . $2,530 police found at his apartment into 59.77 grams of cocaine, “[biased upon a price of $1,200 per 28.35 . . .

MATTIE, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 585 F. App'x 821 (3d Cir. 2014)

. . . The IJ then found that Mattie had pleaded guilty to possessing at least one ounce of marijuana, or 28.35 . . . less than a gram each, was actually contrary to his guilty plea to possessing at least an ounce, or 28.35 . . . The IJ noted that Moncrieffe involved 2-3 marijuana cigarettes, and reasoned that the 28.35 grams called . . . We acknowledge that one ounce or 28.35 grams, see § 2C:35-5(b)(ll), is less than the Board’s “useful . . . guidepost” of 30 grams, and that there is thus room for debating whether 28.35 grams is a “small amount . . .

UNITED STATES v. KAMPER, 748 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . Onge and used his phone to contact Hamper with an order for an additional ounce (28.35 grams) of MDMA . . .

UNITED STATES v. PORTER,, 560 F. App'x 543 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . Police caught Glass holding 28.35 grams of crack cocaine, which he stated he acquired from his longtime . . . On February 19, Glass met with Porter for the first controlled buy and paid him $1,000 for the 28.35 . . . Porter’s attorney questioned the reliability of Glass’s statements regarding the source of the initial 28.35 . . . the police and other circumstantial evidence, that Porter was responsible for distributing at least 28.35 . . . That clerical error suggests that Glass was arrested with the additional 28.35 grams of crack cocaine . . .

UNITED STATES v. MARION,, 547 F. App'x 283 (4th Cir. 2013)

. . . price of an ounce of crack in Cumberland County) and then multiplied that amount, 7.105 (ounces), by 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. VELASCO, a k a a k a, 543 F. App'x 759 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . following is undisputed: Fernandez and Haar were arrested with 31.1 grams of methamphetamine (an ounce is 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOODWIN,, 518 F. App'x 890 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . possessed 90.9 grams of marijuana, but Reed testified that typical marijuana users only purchased 1 to 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BRUNER,, 513 F. App'x 779 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . subsequently indicted for three crimes: (1) distributing approximately one ounce (i.e., approximately 28.35 . . . Bruner distributed approximately one ounce of cocaine base (i.e., approximately 28.35 grams) (Count One . . .

UNITED STATES v. HENRY,, 496 F. App'x 294 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . to the presen-tence investigation report (PSR), Henry was responsible for 1583.91 grams of crack and 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. J. DAMATO,, 672 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2012)

. . . additional transactions as relevant conduct: A 1995 occurrence in which Bower was arrested with 62.5 pounds (28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHEFFIELD,, 842 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . Officer Abdalla testified that pursuant to DEA regulations, the DEA does not accept custody of more than 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MACIEL, Jr. HH, v. P, v. N,, 461 F. App'x 610 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . An ounce weighs approximately 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HACKLEY, IV, a k a J. R. a k a J,, 662 F.3d 671 (4th Cir. 2011)

. . . One ounce is equivalent to 28.35 grams; Jackson made controlled purchases totaling 6.5 grams of crack . . .

UNITED STATES v. SLAGG, v., 651 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . Pruett, 501 F.3d 976, 985 (8th Cir.2007) (remarking that, “[a]s one ounce equals approximately 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. PALMA, 446 F. App'x 57 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . The correct conversion is 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. KING, 424 F. App'x 389 (5th Cir. 2011)

. . . There are approximately 28.35 grams in one ounce. . See United States v. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON,, 639 F.3d 489 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . An ounce equals approximately 28.35 grams. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. MOORE, JAK,, 411 F. App'x 922 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . jury’s finding that the conspiracy involved 500 grams or more of cocaine. .There are approximately 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. TORO,, 406 F. App'x 645 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . hearing to determine the quantity of drugs possessed and distributed by Toro, the District Court found 28.35 . . . Toro concedes he sold 28.35 grams of cocaine and a total of 85.05 grams of crack cocaine, but disputes . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. STATE, 56 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 2010)

. . . When converted into metric units, one ounce equals 28.35 grams. . . .

GRIFFITH, AKA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES, 400 F. App'x 632 (3d Cir. 2010)

. . . As the BIA noted, one ounce is equivalent to approximately 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BLACKBURN,, 398 F. App'x 453 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . One ounce is equal to approximately 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SANCHEZ- CHAPARRO,, 392 F. App'x 639 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . At 16 ounces per pound, and 28.35 grams to the ounce (rounded up slightly from the most precise figure . . .

UNITED STATES v. JACKSON,, 596 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2010)

. . . advised in an interview with police that he had “cooked” 3/4 of an ounce to 1 ounce (21.26 grams to 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOLDEN,, 679 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Iowa 2010)

. . . quantities in this ease as 385.62 grams of crack cocaine (6,712.40 kilograms of marijuana equivalent) and 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLEMAN,, 584 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . One ounce is equivalent to approximately 28.35 grams. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOPKINS,, 310 F. App'x 254 (10th Cir. 2009)

. . . grams of a methamphetamine mixture, representing the amounts he received from Wright for materials, and 28.35 . . . produced during the post-January cook was approximately one pound (400 grams), the court determined 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. McCALISTER,, 314 F. App'x 110 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . the conspiracy McCalister possessed, delivered and distributed in excess of 454.5 grams of cocaine, 28.35 . . .

In MUSICLAND HOLDING CORP. a a LLC, a a LLC, a UBS LLC, a L. P. a v. N. A. a N. A. a, 386 B.R. 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . As of November 27, 2006, Musicland held $28.35 million in cash. . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. BRIESEMEISTER,, 273 F. App'x 534 (7th Cir. 2008)

. . . According to that estimate, if Taylor sold just one ounce (28.35 grams) per week, her relevant conduct . . . would exceed 1.5 kilograms (28.35 grams x 78 weeks = 2.2 kilograms). . . .

UNITED STATES v. TODD,, 515 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . One ounce equals approximately 28.35 grams. See Presentence Investigation Report at 6. . . .

UNITED STATES v. PRUETT,, 501 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2007)

. . . As one ounce equals approximately 28.35 grams, each ounce of methamphetamine purchased by Pruett could . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. LUEPKE,, 495 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 2D1.1, cmt. 10 (Measurement Conversion Table), one ounce is the equivalent of 28.35 grams. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. LUCERO, a k a, 229 F. App'x 804 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . One ounce is 28.35 grams, resulting in one-quarter ounce being the equivalent of approximately 7.09 grams . . .

UNITED STATES v. BURKE,, 243 F. App'x 69 (6th Cir. 2007)

. . . . = 28.35 grams). . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. AKINS, Sr., 237 F. App'x 61 (6th Cir. 2007)

. . . An ounce equals about 28.35 grams, so an ounce-and-a-half equals about 42.53 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. WATKINS,, 486 F.3d 458 (8th Cir. 2007)

. . . One ounce equals 28.35 grams. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 10. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON,, 224 F. App'x 523 (7th Cir. 2007)

. . . particular deal on June 24, 2004, in which Cross, acting through Patterson, sold Robinson one ounce (or 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . One ounce is equivalent to 28.35 grams. U.S. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LURRY, a k a, 210 F. App'x 291 (4th Cir. 2006)

. . . One ounce converts to 28.35 grams. See USSG § 2D 1.1(c), comment, (n.10). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BROTHERS,, 209 F. App'x 460 (6th Cir. 2006)

. . . involved 170.1 grams, which is one ounce per month for six months, using a conversion rate of one ounce to 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. GAVIN,, 205 F. App'x 56 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . One ounce is equivalent to 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MALOUF,, 466 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2006)

. . . Next, Malouf contested an alleged one-ounce (28.35-gram) transaction on April 25 and another on April . . . Finally, Malouf challenged the alleged June 11 one-ounce (28.35-gram) transaction. . . . As a result, the court declined to hold Malouf accountable for the one ounce (28.35 grams) he allegedly . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOUCHINS, v., 200 F. App'x 259 (4th Cir. 2006)

. . . than the base offense level of 20 that would have applied had the probation officer used one ounce (28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BERGOLD, Jr., 194 F. App'x 348 (6th Cir. 2006)

. . . ounces of methamphetamine (mixture) attributed to Bergold is the equivalent of 226.8 grams (8 oz. x 28.35 . . .

INDIANA MILLS MANUFACTURING, INC. v. DOREL INDUSTRIES INC., 458 F. Supp. 2d 890 (S.D. Ind. 2006)

. . . wholesale price of Dorel’s line of car seats that utilized the IMMI adjustor varied from a low of $28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. TY K. LEYLAND,, 191 F. App'x 765 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . One ounce equals approximately 28.35 grams. . Mr. . . .

UNITED STATES v. MCCLENDON,, 187 F. App'x 334 (4th Cir. 2006)

. . . One ounce equals 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. COLEMAN, Jr. a. k. a., 185 F. App'x 909 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . On June 3, 2004, Coleman indicated that he had an ounce (28.35 grams) of cocaine base, but sold 12.9 . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. McCALISTER,, 165 F. App'x 599 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . calculated McCalister’s sentence, in part, based on 498.5 grams of methamphetamine, 454.4 grams of cocaine, 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOPKINS,, 408 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (D. Kan. 2005)

. . . defendant Charles Hopkins should be held accountable for 21 grams of a methamphetamine mixture and 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. LEROY, 373 F. Supp. 2d 887 (E.D. Wis. 2005)

. . . Defendant and the Cl also discussed the sale of one ounce (28.35 grams) of cocaine on 10/14/03, which . . . The relevant conduct amount of 28.35 grams of cocaine (5.67 kg of THC) did not affect the analysis. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BEAMON,, 373 F. Supp. 2d 878 (E.D. Wis. 2005)

. . . crack (52.7 grams) to a confidential information (“Cl”) on 8/7/01 and negotiated the sale of one ounce (28.35 . . . Further, I found that the attempted sale of one ounce, or 28.35 grams, to the Cl on 9/20/01 was relevant . . .

UNITED STATES v. MALOUF,, 377 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Mass. 2005)

. . . While the government characterized this as a one ounce cocaine transaction (28.35 grams), based on the . . . the brown lunch bag probably contained the cocaine he had just picked up from Nicholson (1 ounce or 28.35 . . . a fair preponderance of the evidence, I would clearly agree with the government and charge another 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. VAUGHN,, 410 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . Chinn’s testimony attributed 13 additional ounces, or 368.55 grams (one ounce equals 28.35 grams). . . .

UNITED STATES v. WALTON,, 132 F. App'x 793 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Conversion Table to facilitate conversions to drug equivalences, wherein it states that one ounce equals 28.35 . . . Under the Guidelines, one ounce equals 28.35 grams; thus, the two ounces appellant sold equaled 56.7 . . .

UNITED STATES v. RICHARDSON, v. v. a k a v., 128 F. App'x 305 (4th Cir. 2005)

. . . cmt. 10 (2004) (providing a conversion table indicating that one ounce of drugs is the equivalent of 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. D. POWELL,, 404 F.3d 678 (2d Cir. 2005)

. . . (One ounce is equal to 28.35 grams). . . .

CAZAREZ- GUTIERREZ, v. ASHCROFT,, 382 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . One ounce is 28.35 grams. . . . .

CAZAREZ- GUTIERREZ, v. ASHCROFT,, 356 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . One ounce is 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON,, 342 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2003)

. . . The 1.5 kilograms was reached by multiplying one ounce (28.35 grams) by 210 days (approximately 7 months . . .

UNITED STATES v. HENDERSON, a k a, 320 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2003)

. . . It should be noted that one ounce equals 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. LAKE,, 229 F. Supp. 2d 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . application requested that the Court take judicial notice of the fact that one ounce of cocaine is equal to 28.35 . . . request and consent to the Court taking judicial notice of the fact that one ounce of cocaine is equal to 28.35 . . . Government asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that one ounce of cocaine is equal to 28.35 . . . Government’s request that'the Court take judicial notice of the fact that one ounce of cocaine is equal to 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. STEWART, 306 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . connection with counting her husband’s drug-sale proceeds, involved a sufficient amount of crack cocaine — 28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. R. PEREZ,, 45 F. App'x 840 (10th Cir. 2002)

. . . One ounce is approximately 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. TITLBACH,, 300 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2002)

. . . The court found that this would produce about 28.35 grams of methamphetamine mixture. . . .

UNITED STATES v. CAMPOS, E, v. H, v. R. v. G, v. E, v. H, v. R. v. G,, 48 F. App'x 602 (9th Cir. 2002)

. . . Detevis remembered one occasion where he and Felix went to Perez’s house to sell one ounce of meth (28.35 . . . Detevis testified also that Felix told him about selling one ounce of meth (28.35 grams) to Moreno, and . . .

In TREX COMPANY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 212 F. Supp. 2d 596 (W.D. Va. 2002)

. . . As a result of these statements, Trex’s stock price rose from $24.85 on Friday, April 20, 2001, to $28.35 . . .

UNITED STATES v. M. MARTINEZ,, 258 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2001)

. . . One ounce is equivalent to 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BARGE,, 19 F. App'x 30 (4th Cir. 2001)

. . . Garrett also testified that he saw Barge with one ounce (28.35 grams) on four occasions, totaling 113.4 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WILSON,, 244 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . One ounce equals 28.35 grams; thirty-six ounces is equivalent to 1,020.6 grams. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. MATHENY,, 5 F. App'x 218 (4th Cir. 2001)

. . . See USSG § 2D1.1 (one ounce equals 28.35 grams). . . .

UNITED STATES v. AGUIRRE, Of v., 4 F. App'x 370 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . One ounce equals 28.35 grams. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. CANDELARIO,, 240 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001)

. . . There are 28.35 grams in an ounce. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Measurement Conversion Table. . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. WALKER,, 237 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2001)

. . . fair trial; and (8) the district court erroneously considered a November 1998 transaction involving 28.35 . . . The district court included the 28.35 grams of crack cocaine in Walker’s total for sentencing purposes . . . we should reverse and remand his sentence with instructions to the district court to disregard the 28.35 . . . On appeal, Walker argues that the 28.35 ounces of crack he obtained in November should not have been . . . Walker asserts that the inclusion of 28.35 grams of “crack cocaine” in his relevant conduct based on . . .

UNITED STATES v. HISHAW,, 235 F.3d 565 (10th Cir. 2000)

. . . As the government’s expert witness on forensic chemistry testified at trial, one ounce equals 28.35 grams . . .

UNITED STATES v. SCHEELE,, 231 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2000)

. . . One ounce of methamphetamine mixture equals 28.35 grams. . . .

UNITED STATES v. A. DALLAS,, 229 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000)

. . . The Presen-tence Report attributed 288.32 grams of cocaine to the defendant: 28.35 grams from the July . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON,, 227 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . Johnson had engaged in other relevant conduct by selling 56.7 grams of crack and 28.35 grams of cocaine . . . Johnson was accountable for 56.7 grams of crack and 28.35 grams of cocaine. . . . Smith, who had been arrested with 28.35 grams of cocaine in his possession, reported to the D.E.A. that . . . Johnson this 28.35 grams of cocaine. . . .

UNITED STATES v. ASCH,, 207 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2000)

. . . One ounce is equivalent to approximately 28.35 grams. . . . .

UNITED STATES v. TWO PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT NORTH LIBERTY STREET AND LIBERTY STREET IN CLANTON, CHILTON COUNTY, ALABAMA,, 80 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Ala. 2000)

. . . This amount of crack cocaine equals 28.35 grams, which carries an unadjusted base-offense level of 28 . . . Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D 1.1 cmt. 10, at 94 (1995), states that one ounce equals 28.35 grams . . .

UNITED STATES v. E. HUDDLESTON,, 194 F.3d 214 (1st Cir. 1999)

. . . the trial testimony, the court concluded that, at a minimum, the appellant bore responsibility for 28.35 . . .