JIMINEZ

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Rogers, 228 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …ggered section 2119(2) or section 2119(3) were sentencing factors which need not be charged in the indictment or proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 51 F. 3d 1004, 1009-1010 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 900, 116 S.Ct. 258, 133 L.Ed.2d 182 (1995); United States v. Oliver, 60 F. 3d 547, 551-54 (9th Cir.1994), aff'd on appeal after remand, 116 F. 3d 1487, 1997 WL 355922 (9th Cir.1997), rev’d sub nom. Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215,…
• United States v. Tucker, 136 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 1998)
  …834, 836 (11th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 727, 139 L.Ed.2d 666 (1998). This Court reviews the application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts de novo. United States v. Williams, 51 F. 3d 1004, 1011 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 900, 116 S.Ct. 258, 133 L.Ed.2d 182 (1995). Upon review of the parties’ briefs, sentencing transcript, PSI, and other relevant portions of the record, and consideration of the arguments of the parties, we find no reversible error. Although this court h…
• United States v. Blanc, 146 F.3d 847 (11th Cir. 1998)
  …s of fact for clear error and review the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts de novo. United States v. Exarhos, 135 F. 3d 723, 729-30 (11th Cir.1998) (citing United States v. Williams, 51 F. 3d 1004, 1011 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 900, 116 S.Ct. 258, 133 L.Ed.2d 182 (1995)). Therefore, the district court’s factual findings regarding whether the two convictions at issue in this sentencing involved the same course of conduct or were part of a common scheme or plan, thus requiring…