JON HENRY SWEENEY, PETITIONER,

v.

UNITED STATES.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. ROY, 855 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2017)
  …e result, those cases are distinguishable from the present case because none involved a single defendant deprived of his sole counsel. See Sweeney v. United States, 766 F. 3d 857, 858-59 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1841, 191 L.Ed.2d 723 (2015) (mem.); United States v. Raid, 502 F. 3d 43, 44-45 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). In fact, in Raid, there were so many defense attorneys and co-defendants that counsel’s “alleged trial absence” was not “noted anywhere in the trial record — no…
• Chicago v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 585 F.2d 254 (7th Cir. 1978)
  …one so out of an abundance of caution. Brief of Great Northern Railway Co., et al., Intervening Defendants, United States v. United States, 296 F.Supp. 856 (D.D.C. 1968), at 95. . Penn Central Merger Cases, 389 U.S. 486, 492-93, 88 S.Ct. 602, 605, 191 L.Ed.2d 723 (1968). The Congressional directive for a limited number of railroads dates back over 50 years, the only change being the means of achieving that goal. See generally St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 347 U.S. 298, 315-21, 74 S.Ct. 574…