UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD HARRY REEH, ARLINGTON DOUGLAS SPRECHER, THEODORE DUANE JORDEN AND MICHAEL RYAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

11th Cir. | 1984-02-24
No. 82-6024
725 F.2d 633 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

In this marijuana case the district court denied a motion to suppress as evidence the seized marijuana. In the subsequent bench trial defendants were found guilty. After a notice of appeal was filed, defendants filed what the district court deemed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The district judge certified to this court that he was disposed to grant the motion should this court remand the case in accordance with the procedure approved in U.S. v. Fuentes-Lozano, 580 F. 2d 724, 725-26 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam).

The case is REMANDED to the district court for its ruling on the motion for new trial.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Reeh, 780 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986)
    …with intent to distribute by a U.S. citizen on any vessel, and 21 U.S.C. § 955c, which outláws conspiracy to violate section 955a. After a somewhat complicated procedural history which included a previous appeal to this court, United States v. Reeh, 725 F. 2d 633 (11th Cir.1984), all four defendants were convicted on both the substantive and conspiracy counts. On appeal, the defendants contend that the Coast Guard’s stopping and boarding of the JIM HAWKINS constituted an unreasonable seizure of the vessel i…
  • United States v. Ellsworth, 814 F.2d 613 (11th Cir. 1987)
    …s merits or certify that the motion should be granted in order to afford the appellate court jurisdiction to entertain a motion to remand. See Cronic, 466 U.S. at 667 n. 42, 104 S.Ct. at 2051 n. 42; Bascaro, 742 F. 2d at 1344; United States v. Reeh, 725 F. 2d 633, 633 (11th Cir.1984); Fuentes-Lozano, 580 F. 2d at 725-26. Appellant has not filed his motion in the district court. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to rule on its merits. Appellants motion is denied without prejudice to seek relief in the dis…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw