Certiorari Denied

64 Citing cases

  1. Rehearing Denied

    535 U.S. 1075 (2002)

    No. 01-7612 DOERR v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO., ante, p. 935; No. 01-7707 ZHARN v. UNITED STATES, 534 U.S. 1166; No. 01-7712 CLARK v. O'DEA, WARDEN, ante, p. 938;

  2. U.S. v. Wright

    392 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 228 times
    Holding that it was "entirely proper for the court to make inquiries of a witness in order to clarify the evidence presented"

    Moreover, we have consistently upheld the validity of this statute. See e.g., United States v. Dunn, 345 F.3d 1285, 1297 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002); United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2001). We will not and moreover cannot upset our prior precedent.

  3. U.S. v. Dunn

    345 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 155 times
    Holding defendant must "demonstrate actual prejudice" because "the first three Barker factors do not uniformly weigh heavily against the government."

    See United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) ("Neither Morrison nor Jones modifies our decision in McAllister, upholding the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), under Congress' Commerce Clause power." (citing United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 390 (11th Cir. 1996))) (other citations omitted), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002). This conclusion is consistent with those reached by other circuits.

  4. U.S. v. Allen

    341 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 81 times
    Finding Nazi reading material in defendant's possession, among other items, properly admitted to prove racial animus despite potentially prejudicial nature

    See United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) ("[A]s long as the weapon in question has a 'minimal nexus' to interstate commerce, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional.") (affirming United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir. 1996)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182 (2002); United States v. Peterson, 236 F.3d 848, 852 (7th Cir. 2001) (upholding the de minimus standard as it applies to robberies prosecuted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)). We similarly reject this argument.

  5. U.S. v. Bennett

    329 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that coercive factors were not present where police did not restrain the defendant while questioning him and told him he was not under arrest

    Apprendi is not implicated, however, where judges find facts increasing the mandatory minimum sentence below the maximum sentence for the crime committed. See Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 565, 569-70, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002); United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1265 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002). "[F]acts guiding judicial discretion below the statutory maximum need not be alleged in the indictment, submitted to the jury, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

  6. U.S. v. Pritchett

    327 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that section 922(j) was a proper exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause powers

    This court reviews the constitutionality of statutes de novo. United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1271 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Reynolds, 215 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002). III.

  7. U.S. v. Fredette

    315 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 76 times
    Finding no plain error when the district court issued general unanimity instruction and "ample evidence" showed that defendant " both devised a scheme to defraud customers and dealers and devised a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses."

    See United States v. Bailey, 286 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002). Fredette concedes that we have held, in United States v. Sullivan, 255 F.3d 1256, 1264-65 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002), that Apprendi does not apply to sentencing factors that increase a defendant's guideline range but do not increase the statutory maximum. Fredette's sentence in this case does not exceed the total statutory maximum.

  8. U.S. v. Gorman

    314 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly excluded the nearly 10-month period between defendant's filing of a motion to exclude evidence and the defendant's entering of a guilty plea even though the court never ruled on the suppression motion

    We review the District Court's denial of Gorman's motion to suppress evidence de novo; the District Court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002). The District Court's denial of Gorman's motion to dismiss for noncompliance with the Speedy Trial Act is reviewed de novo.

  9. U.S. v. Bates

    47 F. App'x 477 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 3 times
    Finding a search after a “brief period” following an arrest was a search incident to arrest

    We review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002). Bates' contention that he was stopped when the officer partially blocked the sidewalk with his car and asked Bates questions is unpersuasive.

  10. U.S. v. Stone

    306 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 33 times
    Holding "a clear contrary statement from the Supreme Court" will compel a court of appeals to depart from a prior decision

    We now join every circuit addressing the issue in concluding that they do not.See United States v. Santiago, 268 F.3d 151, 154-57 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 219-220 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Skidmore, 254 F.3d 635, 642 (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Abernathy, 277 F.3d 1048, 1049-1050 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 688-89 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1166, 122 S.Ct. 1182, 152 L.Ed.2d 124 (2002); United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 586-88 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 986, 121 S.Ct. 1635, 149 L.Ed.2d 495 (2001); United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 960, 121 S.Ct. 2616, 150 L.Ed.2d 770 (2001). In United States v. Affleck, 861 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1988), we held that "because [Section] 924(e)(1) does not create a separate offense but is merely a sentence enhancement provision," neither the statute nor the Constitution requires a jury finding on the existence of the three previous felony convictions required for the enhancement.