18 U.S.C. § 3741
Harmless error and plain error—(Rule)
Error or defect as affecting substantial rights, Rule 52.
Defects in indictment, Rule 7.
Waiver of error, Rules 12(b)(2) and 30.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1974–2018 · leading case: United States v. Peter Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Peter Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2015). “2004), and we give “due deference” to the court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts, 18 U.S.C. § 3741 (e); United States v. Williams, 340 F.”
United States v. Gilberto Ocasio, A/K/A Gilberto Ocasio Agosto, 914 F.2d 330 (1st Cir. 1990). “2d at 49 (“degree of departure must, on appeal, be measured by a standard of reasonableness”) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3741 (e)(2)). To facilitate this inquiry, we suggest in the strongest terms that the sentencing judge explain succinctly the reasons for the degree of departure…”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. CALHOON, Defendant-Appellant, 97 F.3d 518 (11th Cir. 1996). “§ 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3741 (a) and affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The charges against Calhoon arose out of actions he took while employed by Charter Medical Corporation (CMC), a national hospital chain headquartered in Macon, Georgia and composed of both medical/surgical and…”
United States v. Robert E. Ladum Ronald D. Van Vliet Daniel Hong Echols Doyle Ford David C. Grigonis James R. Weaver, 141 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir. 1998). “We have jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. § 3741 (a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1294 , and although we remand for resentencing as to Ford, we otherwise affirm.”
United States v. Matthew Otis Charles, 138 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 1998). “First, the court considered Charles’s sworn proffer statement conditionally given after his arrest that he participated in the drug transaction on November 22, 1995 at 862 Parham.”
United States v. Medina Casteneda, 511 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). “§ 1291 and the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3741 . On Medina-Castene-da’s petition for rehearing we reaffirm his conviction, but in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Kimbrough v.”
United States v. Paul Knobloch, 131 F.3d 366 (3rd Cir. 1997). “Based on its finding of a nexus with the cache in the apartment, the court enhanced Knobloch’s offense level under § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and sentenced him to 147 months of imprisonment.”
United States v. John S. Williamson, 1 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 1993). “We exercise jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3741 and affirm. This case arises out of an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) investigation of Mr.”
United States v. Eric Michael Turner, A/K/A Boo, 198 F.3d 425 (4th Cir. 1999). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3741 ; Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) *431 (“Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
United States v. Tommy M. Martinez, 258 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2001). “BACKGROUND Beginning in May 1996, a joint investigation was undertaken by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies participating in the Carbondale-Murphysboro (Ill.”
United States v. Valentine, 70 F. App'x 314 (6th Cir. 2003). “5 kilograms each of crack, and that Dedrick was responsible for distributing 283.5 grams of crack.”
United States v. Mark Albritton, 75 F.3d 709 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “18 U.S.C. § 3741 (1988); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52; see Watson, 57 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.