Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

United States v. Hinojosa

749 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2014)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
United States v. Hinojosa

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Montemayor

    55 F.4th 1003 (5th Cir. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    In Montemayor, we weighed whether to do so faced with a similar scenario, i.e., when the jury had not made the requisite individualized drug finding.

    To establish plain error, "a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affected the defendant's substantial rights." United States v. Hinojosa , 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). The third step of the analysis may be satisfied by showing "a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different."

  2. United States v. Romans

    823 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 87 times
    Holding there was not good cause for new counsel when defendant had complained that his lawyer "was not filing the motions that he wanted him to file"

    In Alleyne v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2155, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), the court extended this logic to facts that increase the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The Court in Alleyne did not address discretionary guideline enhancements, and as this court noted in United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir.2014), “[t]he Alleyne opinion did not imply that the traditional fact-finding on relevant conduct, to the extent it increases the discretionary sentencing range for a district judge under the Guidelines, must now be made by jurors.” Moseby was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms of marijuana.

  3. United States v. Witcher

    No. 18-11473 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2020)

    We review his contention for plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014). Witcher's claim of a Government breach is not plainly supported by the record or a reasonable interpretation of the plea agreement.

  4. United States v. Velasquez

    881 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2018)   Cited 37 times
    Affirming the life imprisonment sentences for four defendants charged with violations of RICO and murder

    "If those requirements are met, the reviewing court may in its discretion remedy the error only if it (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." United States v. Hinojosa , 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). If the unpreserved error does not meet this demanding plain error standard, the court does not have authority to correct it. Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.b. Applicable Law and Analysis

  5. United States v. Estrada

    653 F. App'x 822 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Estrada has not established a breach of the plea agreement on either point. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014). Because Estrada's issues for appeal are clearly barred by the valid waiver, the appeal is dismissed.

  6. United States v. Stanford

    805 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 2015)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that "[n]either Apprendi nor Alleyne applies to sentencing guidelines" and that a district court may "adjudge a sentence within the statutorily authorized range"

    Neither Apprendi nor Alleyne applies to sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412–13 (5th Cir.2014). Therefore, his argument is without merit and we find no error.