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.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
U.S. v. Imngren

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Mayes

    158 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 1998)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that "trial judges should not blindly defer to the recommendation of law enforcement officials as to the appropriateness of shackling without independently reviewing the facts and circumstances thought to warrant such a security measure and carefully considering the legal ramifications of that decision"

    We therefore turn to the overall purpose expressed in the regulations themselves to derive the government's implied intent. See, e.g., United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811, 815 (4th Cir. 1996). Section 541.10(a) states that the disciplinary provisions exist "[s]o that inmates may live in a safe and orderly environment[.]"

  2. Bolton v. Dep't of the Navy Bd. for Corr. of Naval Records

    914 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    Instead, administrative suspensions are intended to promote public safety by removing drivers who drive under the influence. United States v. Imngren , 98 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 1996). In fact, the Fourth Circuit held that prosecution for driving under the influence on a military reservation following suspension of driving privileges did not violate double jeopardy.

  3. U.S. v. Sauls

    981 F. Supp. 909 (D. Md. 1997)   Cited 27 times
    Finding no constitutional error when officer read state, not federal, driving consequences of refusal, noting that defendant could not show how he was harmed by “taking a test that the federal law required he take”

    Although it is debatable, the defendant may be correct in his contention that the Maryland administrative penalties are more severe than those imposed under the Federal statute. See, United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 1996).

  4. Alan A. v. Verniero

    970 F. Supp. 1153 (D.N.J. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that Megan's Law was enacted to provide knowledge as measure of self-defense to help protect most vulnerable community members from sex offenders

    The Tier Determination Hearing is not unlike any separate hearing afforded prior to imposition of a remedial restraint, sanction or burden based in whole or in part on facts that have resulted in or may lead to conviction. See Allen v. Attorney General of State of Maine, 80 F.3d 569 (1st Cir. 1996) (prosecution for driving while intoxicated not barred by prior administrative suspension of license for same conduct); United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811 (4th Cir. 1996) (same); United States v. Glymph, 96 F.3d 722 (4th Cir. 1996) (applying Ursery and concluding that because four year debarment served remedial purpose it did not bar a criminal prosecution); Borjesson, 92 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1996) (indefinite exclusion from program served remedial purpose and did not bar imposition of a sentence). In any event, the Tier Determination Hearings are not a successive prosecution for the same offense pursuant to the Blockburger test.

  5. State v. Hamann

    363 Or. 264 (Or. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, the duration of the revocation does not automatically make it a punishment. See U.S. v. Imngren , 98 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 1996) (determining that the length of a one-year suspension of driving privileges does not render it punitive, and noting that "the argument that suspending a motorist's driving privileges is punitive because some element of deterrence is involved is without merit"). Two of the Mendoza-Martinez factors do not contribute much to our analysis.

  6. Lawlor v. Commonwealth

    285 Va. 187 (Va. 2013)   Cited 392 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of defendant drinking "on the day of the offense is insufficient to establish that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite intent" to commit capital murder

    We review de novo claims that multiple punishments have been imposed for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause. Fullwood v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 531, 539, 689 S.E.2d 742, 747 (2010) (citing United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811, 813 (4th Cir.1996)). We previously examined this issue in Brown and Powell I: