United States v. Brull

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Morgan-Graham

    CRIMINAL 23-215 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2024)

    See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 683 F.Supp. 56, 61-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1988);United States v. Williams, 6:13-cr-26-Orl-36TBS, 2014 WL 117091, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2014); United States v. Brull, No. 12-10226-01-EFM, 2013 WL 1092885, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 22, 2013); United States v. Warren, No. 09-CR-2059 BB, 2010 WL 11619337, at *1-2 (D.N.M. July 23, 2010); United States v. Agriprocessors, Inc., No. 08-CR-1324-LRR, 2009 WL 2255728, at *18 (N.D. Iowa July 27, 2009).

  2. United States v. James

    No. CR-21-159-RAW (E.D. Okla. Oct. 25, 2021)

    ” Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1523 (11th Cir.1995). See also United States v. Brull, 2013 WL 1092885, *1 (D.Kan.2013); United States v. Warren, 2010 WL 11619337, *1 (D.N.M.2010).

  3. United States v. Williams

    CASE NO: 6:13-cr-26-Orl-36TBS (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2014)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that an Eighth Amendment challenge to a charged offense was not ripe where defendant had not yet pleaded guilty or been tried on the offense

    Williams's Eighth Amendment challenge is not ripe and accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to address it. See Cheffer, 55 F.3d at 1523 (noting that ripeness is a jurisdictional, as well as prudential, concern); United States v. Brull, No. 12-10226-01-EFM, 2013 WL 1092885, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 22, 2013) (concluding that a defendant's Eighth Amendment challenge to a mandatory minimum sentence was not ripe where the defendant had not yet stood trial or entered a plea); United States v. Caro, No. 1:06-CR-00001, 2006 WL 1594185, at *3-4 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2006), report and recommendation adopted, 2006 WL 2987930 (W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2006) (concluding that a defendant's Eighth Amendment challenge was not ripe where the defendant had not yet stood trial or entered a plea). Williams's Second Motion to Dismiss fails to raise any meritorious grounds.

  4. Merryfield v. Sullivan

    342 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)

    • The restriction is rationally related to an important governmental interest—protecting the public. Before the restrictions were put in place, some patients had allegedly committed new federal crimes while in the Sexual Predator Treatment Program. See United States v. Brull, 2013 WL 1092885, at *1 (D.Kan.2013) (unpublished opinion) (noting federal criminal charges against person who, while in program, allegedly solicited a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct). Similarly, Turner and DesLauriers testified that uncontrolled contact between patients and others, especially inmates, had led to nontherapeutic contacts and communications.