U.S. v. Pervez

10 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Wright

    921 F.2d 42 (3d Cir. 1990)   Cited 43 times
    Affirming the unavailability of the entrapment defense where the defendant did not hesitate to join, and exhibited a "ready receptiveness" to, the criminal scheme

    " United States v. Berkery, 889 F.2d 1281, 1283 (3d Cir. 1989). But see United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310, 317 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 3258, 106 L.Ed.2d 603 (1989) (holding evidence of inducement insufficient to warrant entrapment charge). In Fedroff, we stated that predisposition "may be defined as the defendant's inclination to engage in the crime for which he was charged, . . . measured before his initial exposure to government agents."

  2. U.S. v. Giampa

    904 F. Supp. 235 (D.N.J. 1995)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that the court must view the evidence "`not in isolation but in conjunction'"

    Gaito's Initiation of Contact With Sabol In United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3258, 106 L.Ed.2d 603 (1989), the defendant was convicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the Government, attempted exportation of beryllium in violation of export laws and submission of false statements to the department of Commerce. The defendant argued on appeal that he was entitled to an acquittal, as a matter of law, based on an entrapment defense.

  3. United States v. Smith

    No. 16-4301 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2023)   Cited 2 times
    Agreeing Hobbs act conspiracy no longer counts as a § 924(c) predicate because it is not a crime of violence

    Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (permitting "[a] plain error that affects substantial rights [to] be considered" on appeal "even though it was not brought to the [trial] court's attention."); see also Henderson, 568 U.S. at 270; United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310, 314 (3d Cir. 1989). Courts may provide remedies under Rule 52(b) only if there is (1) an "error[,]" that is (2) "plain" and (3) "affect[s] substantial rights."

  4. United States v. Johnson

    899 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2018)   Cited 118 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Alleyne applies to cases pending on direct appeal at the time it was decided

    However, while the new rule applies, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) limits our review to plain errors. Henderson , 568 U.S. at 270, 133 S.Ct. 1121 ; United States v. Pervez , 871 F.2d 310, 314 (3d Cir. 1989). Here, although we had rendered our decision in Johnson’s appeal before Alleyne was decided, the case remained on direct review because our mandate had not yet issued.

  5. U.S. v. Retos

    25 F.3d 1220 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that “inasmuch as the district court's [ruling] was clearly and obviously erroneous under current law, we hold that it constituted ‘plain’ error”

    The government, of course, may, in its discretion, retry Retos on Count 4, inasmuch as our vacatur of Retos' structuring conviction did not result from a finding of insufficient evidence. United States v. Beros, 833 F.2d 455, 467 n. 13 (3d Cir. 1987); United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310, 319 (3d Cir. 1989). We will affirm Retos' convictions on Counts 2, 3, and 6 through 11, but we will remand to the district court for resentencing.

  6. U.S. v. Inigo

    925 F.2d 641 (3d Cir. 1991)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the evidence against certain defendants “was insufficient as to the crimes charged against them in the indictment ”

    Skerianz argues that the government failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not entrapped because it did not expressly deny involvement before January 5. Our review of Skerianz's entrapment claim is plenary. United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310, 314 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 3258, 106 L.Ed.2d 603 (1989). In making this argument, Skerianz skips over the requirement that a defendant must produce evidence from which entrapment could be inferred before the burden of persuading the fact-finder that there was no entrapment falls on the government.

  7. U.S. v. Berkery

    889 F.2d 1281 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Berkery, the defendant was accused of conspiring to possess and distribute P2P (phenyl-2-propanone, a controlled substance used to produce methamphetamine) and of the substantive offenses of possessing and distributing P2P. Berkery, 889 F.2d at 1282.

    108 S.Ct. at 886-88. See also United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310, 316 (3d Cir. 1989) (plain error standard used to review "because the change in the law affects the defendant's substantial right to plead inconsistent defenses"). Third, the seriousness of the error in this case results from the admissions of all elements of the conspiracy which, by its nature, is so intertwined with the substantive offenses such that the admission of one count results in the admission of virtually all. Finally, we note that since the defense of entrapment is a judicially created defense, any judicial modification or alteration must be applied even-handedly or the very nature of the judiciary would be called to question.

  8. U.S. v. Fedroff

    874 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding inducement where government agents paid for defendant's expensive meals and gambling trips in an effort to get him accustomed to the lifestyle

    Similarly, we will apply Mathews to this appeal. Our review of the effect of Mathews is also a question of law subject to plenary review. United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310, 314 (3d Cir. 1989). IV.

  9. Antilles Insurance, Inc. v. James

    CIV. APP. NO. 1992-27 (D.V.I. Jul. 6, 1994)   Cited 6 times

    Plain error or defect is demonstrated only if the claimed error affects a substantial right and had an unfair impact on jury deliberations. United States v. Pervez, 871 F.2d 310, 315 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 (1989) quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 at 16-17 (1985). The standard is implemented to remedy potential miscarriages of justice, and is sparingly applied.

  10. Colon v. Government of the Virgin Islands

    D.C. CRIM. APP. # 92-69 (D.V.I. May. 25, 1994)   Cited 3 times
    Affirming admission of evidence that was "highly probative in determining appellant's intent by demonstrating a cumulative or continuing action and the `absence of mistake or accident'"

    Plain error or defect is demonstrated only if the claimed error affects a substantial right and had an unfair impact on jury deliberations. United States v. Parvis, 871 F.2d 310, 315 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 (1989) ( quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 at 16-17 (1985)). Plain error review is available to remedy potential miscarriages of justice, and is sparingly applied.