But in light of its decision in Koon, the Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further consideration. See Rybicki v. United States, 518 U.S. 1014, 116 S.Ct. 2543 (1996). On remand, the court of appeals adhered to its earlier ruling reversing the district court's departure, but modified its reasoning after considering Koon. The court recognized that the district court based its downward departure in part on the fact that the defendant had a nine-year old son with neurological problems who was in need of special supervision, and a wife experiencing a period of fragile mental health.

The evidence at trial showed that Sandoval supplied drugs to Mojica, Hruza and Miranda who, in turn, distributed drugs to Najar (on Lalo's behalf) in exchange for money. The jury heard that Lalo and Najar had an ongoing cooperative relationship with the Supreme Auto defendants that was built on more than mere buyer-seller transactions. See United States v. Mims, 92 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Edwards, 77 F.3d 968, 974 (7th Cir.), vacated and remanded for resentencing on other grounds, 518 U.S. 1014 (1996). As links in a single chain of drug distribution, Sandoval, the Supreme Auto defendants and the Milwaukee purchasers joined together to pursue a common scheme.

The Court was unable to locate a copy of the Fifth Circuit's opinion regarding Petitioner's direct appeal of his convictions and sentence. It appears, however, that the Fifth Circuit vacated Petitioner's gun possession conviction after the Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the matter to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). See Cuellar v. United States, 518 U.S. 1014 (1996). In Bailey, the Supreme Court concluded that "[t]o sustain a conviction under the 'use' prong of [18 U.S.C.] § 924(c)(1), the Government must show that the defendant actively employed the firearm during and in relation to the predicate crime."

Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir. 1995) (there is a Fourth Amendment constitutional right to the confidentiality of medical records);Doe v. Attorney General of the United States, 941 F.2d 780, 795-796 (9th Cir. 1991)( there is a Fourth Amendment constitutional right to the confidentiality of medical records), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Reno v. Doe, 518 U.S. 1014 (1996);A.L.A. v. W. Valley City, 26 F.3d 989, 990 (10th Cir. 1994) ("[C]onfidential medical information is entitled to constitutional privacy protection.");

Auth., 72 F.3d 1133, 1137 (3d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 808, 117 S.Ct. 51, 136 L.Ed.2d 15 (1996); Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir. 1995); Doe v. New York, 15 F.3d 264, 267 (2d Cir. 1994); Doe v. Attorney General of the United States, 941 F.2d 780, 795-796 (9th Cir. 1991), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Reno v. Doe, 518 U.S. 1014, 116 S.Ct. 2543, 135 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1996); see also Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1513 (11th Cir. 1991) (assuming such right exists). Contra Jarvis v. Wellman, 52 F.3d 125, 126 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records).

E.g., Herring v. Keenan, 218 F.3d 1171, 1175 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 840, 122 S.Ct. 96, 151 L.Ed.2d 56 (2001); Doe v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 72 F.3d 1133, 1137 (3d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 808, 117 S.Ct. 51, 136 L.Ed.2d 15 (1996); Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir. 1995); Doe v. New York, supra, 15 F.3d 267 (Second Circuit Court of Appeals); Doe v. Attorney General of the United States, 941 F.2d 780, 795-96 (9th Cir. 1991), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Reno v. Doe, 518 U.S. 1014, 116 S.Ct. 2543, 135 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1996); see also Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1513 (11th Cir. 1991) (assuming such right exists). Contra Jarvis v. Wellman, 52 F.3d 125, 126 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records).

Auth., 72 F.3d 1133, 1137 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied,519 U.S. 808, 117 S.Ct. 51, 136 L.Ed.2d 15 (1996); Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir.1995); Doe v. New York, 15 F.3d 264, 267 (2d Cir.1994); Doe v. Attorney General of the United States, 941 F.2d 780, 795–796 (9th Cir.1991), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Reno v. Doe, 518 U.S. 1014, 116 S.Ct. 2543, 135 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1996); see also Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1513 (11th Cir.1991) (assuming such right exists)). Considering the federal jurisprudence and Louisiana's constitutional requirement of a heightened privacy interest for its citizens, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that absent the narrowly drawn exceptions permitting warrantless searches, a warrant is required to conduct an investigatory search of medical and/or prescription records.