MITRIONE ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES; THURSTON V. UNITED STATES; STERN V. UNITED STATES; CLIFTON V. UNITED STATES; ALTOBELLO ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; CRAWFORD V. UNITED STATES; TRIPLETT V. UNITED STATES; MICKLIN V. UNITED STATES; HAMMOUD, AKA ALBOUSALEH, AKA ABOUSALEH V. UNITED STATES; JILES V. UNITED STATES; DUPURTON V. UNITED STATES; COURTNEY V. UNITED STATES; FLARIDA, AKA STONE V. UNITED STATES; DAVIS V. UNITED STATES; FRANCIS V. UNITED STATES; CALLIPARI V. UNITED STATES; MCCORMACK V. UNITED STATES; STERN V. UNITED STATES; LONG V. UNITED STATES; WINT V. UNITED STATES; TATE V. UNITED STATES; TANG V. UNITED STATES; CALHOUN V. UNITED STATES; CHILINGIRIAN V. UNITED STATES; DURAN BADILLA V. UNITED STATES; SCHNEIDER V. UNITED STATES; MORALES V. UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the trial court's award of trial-level attorney's fees and costs, affirming only the award of appellate-level fees and costs.
The court held that the trial court erred in awarding trial-level attorney's fees and costs, but affirmed the award of appellate-level fees and costs.
[1] Judgments in cases involving federal sentencing guidelines are vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. …
[2] Appellate court decisions concerning the application of federal sentencing guidelines are subject to reconsideration following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a corporate dissolution and share valuation dispute, the parties engaged in multiple appeals. The trial court awarded both trial and appella…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
C. A. 7th Cir. Reported below: 357 F. 3d 712; C. A. 1st Cir. Reported below: 358 F. 3d 51; C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 96 Fed. Appx. 855; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 95 Fed. Appx. 559; C. A. 7th Cir. Reported below: 361 F. 3d 382; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 96 Fed. Appx. 210; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 99 Fed. Appx. 882; C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 89 Fed. Appx. 977; C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 378 F. 3d 426; No. 04-208. No. 04-244.
No. 04-264.
No. 04-274.
No. 04-314.
No. 04-322.
No. 04-337.
No. 04-358.
No. 04-385.
No. 04-457.
No. 04-503.
No. 04-548.
No. 04-592.
No. 04-652.
No. 04-676.
No. 04-762.
No. 04-800.
No. 04-812.
C. A. 10th Cir.; C. A. 2d Cir. Reported below: 368 F. 3d 880; C. A. 8th Cir. Reported below; 362 F. 3d 497; C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 97 Fed. Appx. 794; C. A. 7th Cir. Reported below: 100 Fed. Appx. 571; C. A. 8th Cir. Reported below: 367 F. 3d 805; C. A. 1st Cir. Reported below: 368 F. 3d 22; C. A. 1st Cir. Reported below: 371 F. 3d 22; C. A. 1st Cir.; C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 95 Fed. Appx. 483; C. A. 2d Cir. Reported below: 97 Fed. Appx. 352; C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 99 Fed. Appx. 817; C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 103 Fed. Appx. 121; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 383 F. 3d 281; C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 95 Fed. Appx. 782; C. A. 10th Cir. Reported below: 383 F. 3d 1137; C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 583; and C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, ante, p. 220.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacock v. State, 77 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ecision to impose a sentencing enhancement for obstruction based on the defendant’s absence from required court appearance, due to hospitalization for attempted suicide, was clearly erroneous), vacated on other grounds by Altobello v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097, 125 S.Ct. 994, 160 L.Ed.2d 996 (2005). The State relies upon Hodges v. State, 595 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1992), vacated on other grounds, 506 U.S. 803, 113 S.Ct. 33, 121 L.Ed.2d 6 (1992), in arguing that a suicide attempt is a willful absence from court.…
-
United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008)…its standards, but we assume that the more stringent standards imposed by the earlier version of the Act governed the applications in this appeal. See United States v. Hammoud, 381 F. 3d 316, 333 n. 6 (en banc) (4th Cir.2004), vacated and remanded, 543 U.S. 1097, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997, opinion reinstated in part, 405 F. 3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005). No plain or other error occurred. The district court must grant a motion to suppress the fruits of a search or surveillance if it determines that the sea…
-
Does 1 Through 976 v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., 47 F.4th 1278 (11th Cir. 2022)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence