FUENTES

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008)
  …d at 77; United States v. Nguyen, 46 F. 3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Jones, 28 F. 3d 1574 (11th Cir.1994) (recognizing our discretion to decline to review sentencing errors under the “concurrent sentence doctrine”), vacated, 516 U.S. 1022, 116 S.Ct. 663, 133 L.Ed.2d 515 (1995), opinion reinstated in part, 74 F. 3d 275 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Segien, 114 F. 3d 1014, 1021 (10th Cir.1997). But see United States v. Kincaid, 898 F. 2d 110, 112 (9th Cir.1990) (rejecting the con…
• United States v. US Infrastructure, Inc., 576 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2009)
  …case here. In any event, Henson did not implicate any of the appellants in a crime. Thus, if his testimony was admitted in error, that error was harmless. E.g., United States v. Jones, 28 F. 3d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir.1994), vacated on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1022, 116 S.Ct. 663, 133 L.Ed.2d 515 (1995). S. Appellants ’ Proffered Experts Various cash withdrawals from Singh’s funds were taken to India to finance Singh’s son’s wedding, which cost the Singhs between $180,000 and $190,000. Singh’s wife, Kusum Si…
• United States v. Souksakhone Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2010)
  …hat is, that Phaknikone robbed the banks, but evidence offered to prove identity must satisfy a “particularly stringent” analysis. United States u Jones, 28 F. 3d 1574, 1580 (11th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1022, 116 S.Ct. 663, 133 L.Ed.2d 515 (1995); United States v. Stubbins, 877 F. 2d 42, 44 (11th Cir.1989); Lail, 846 F. 2d at 1301. “When extrinsic offense evidence is introduced to prove identity, ‘the likeness of the offenses is the crucial consideratio…