U.S. v. Kim

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Muhammad

    1:23-cr-00236-NODJ-BAM-1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2024)

    Accordingly, the nature of officer Quezada's observations of defendant Muhammad, including what he was wearing and where he was found shortly after the shots were fired, further supports the officer's reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Lacy, 243 F.3d 551, at *2 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that an “investigatory stop was permissible” where “Lacy was stopped within minutes of the robbery” and “Lacy and his co-defendant were the only individuals in the area to match the descriptions of the suspects”).

  2. United States v. Robinson

    2:22-cr-00212-TL (W.D. Wash. Sep. 20, 2023)

    See Rowe, 92 F.3d at 933 (in prosecution for carjacking and use of firearm during crime of violence, upholding exclusion of government witness' prior theft conviction that carried “a lot of prejudice and almost no probative value”); United States v. Jones, 243 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2000) (mem.)

  3. United States v. Natale

    Crim. No. 18-650 (KM) (D.N.J. May. 12, 2021)

    to and independent from allegations of the offense proved may normally be treated as 'a useless averment' that may be ignored," particularly when the "variation from the indictment did not broaden the bases for conviction, but instead narrowed the scope of the evidence to prove an offense included in the indictment."); United States v. Robey, 831 F.3d 857, 865 (7th Cir. 2016) (rejecting "Robey['s] claim[ of] a constitutional violation because the court dismissed nineteen counts of the indictment prior to trial" because he was "contending 'not that the indictment failed to charge the offense for which he was convicted, but that the indictment charged more than was necessary'"); United States v. Celestin, 612 F.3d 14, 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (upholding conviction where "court eliminated a theory of liability rather than removed an element of the crime" by instructing the jury that defendant could not be convicted on a conspiracy theory if the defendant was acquitted on a conspiracy charge); United States v. Scott, 243 F.3d 551, 2000 WL 1721808 at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2000) (table opinion) ("Because the district court's actions narrowed the scope of the indictment and did not broaden the crimes charged, Scott's substantial rights were not affected.")United States v. Smith, 1996 WL 706827, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 1996), cited by defendant, is not on point.

  4. Veitch v. England

    Civil Action No. 00-2982 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    The threshold issue in this case is whether Plaintiff's resignation was voluntary or coerced, as his standing to seek relief in this court is contingent on the court's finding of constructive discharge. See Taylor v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 132 F. 3d 753, 767 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Kim v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 493, 497 (2000). The court examines all the facts and circumstances in order to determine whether a specific resignation or retirement qualifies as voluntary.

  5. Harris v. U.S.

    No. 09-421C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 21, 2011)

    A decision made "with blinders on," based on misinformation or a lack of information, cannot be binding as a matter of fundamental fairness and due process. Covington v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 750 F.2d at 942-43 (citation omitted); see also Lynn v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. at 802-03 (discussing the Sharf and Covington cases); Kim v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 493, 501 (2000) (discussing the Covington case).

  6. Harris v. United States

    No. 09-421C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 21, 2011)

    misinformation or a lack of information, cannot be binding as a matter of fundamental fairness and due process.Covington v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 750 F.2d at 942-43 (citation omitted); see also Lynn v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. at 802-03 (discussing the Sharf and Covington cases); Kim v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 493, 501 (2000) (discussing the Covington case).