-
493 F.2d 1124·
7th Cir.·
1974-02-19
·cited 347×
-
618 F.2d 530·
9th Cir.·
1980-05-07
·cited 103×
The District Court for the District of Arizona lacked jurisdiction to enter judgments of conviction after transferring the indictment to the Southern District of California.
-
321 F.2d 934·
9th Cir.·
1963-08-14
·cited 80×
-
874 F.2d 647·
9th Cir.·
1989-05-09
·cited 59×
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile factors, provided reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant's luggage for a canine sniff, and that the Sentencing Reform Act provisions requiring a government motion for downward adjustment a
-
269 F.2d 607·
9th Cir.·
1959-08-03
·cited 56×
The court held that a registrant's claim of conscientious objection made after an order to report for induction does not automatically require the Selective Service Board to reopen his classification, and refusal to do so does not violate due process.
-
587 F.2d 397·
8th Cir.·
1978-12-01
·cited 38×
A guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects, including violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), as these are statutory rights not essential for a fair trial.
-
289 F.2d 598·
9th Cir.·
1961-04-27
·cited 30×
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a bill of particulars or in admitting a co-defendant's statements, as independent evidence established a concert of action.
-
932 F.2d 1337·
9th Cir.·
1991-05-13
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire, jury instructions, or sentencing determination, affirming the conviction and sentence.
-
943 F.2d 305·
3d Cir.·
1991-08-28
·cited 11×
The court held that the Retail Clerks Tri-State Health and Welfare Fund was an ERISA welfare benefit plan and could be the subject of a § 1954 prosecution, and that the jury instructions for embezzlement and sentencing adjustments were proper.
-
398 F.2d 595·
4th Cir.·
1968-06-20
·cited 8×
The court held that the United States has jurisdiction to try a defendant for assaulting a District of Columbia correctional employee, even if the United States has not formally accepted jurisdiction over the specific tract of land where the institution is located.
-
931 F.2d 685·
10th Cir.·
1991-04-29
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury on diminished capacity when the defense was not requested and the evidence presented supported only a self-defense theory.
-
737 F.2d 828·
9th Cir.·
1984-07-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over offenses under Title 26, the appellant's due process rights were not violated by his conviction for assaulting an IRS agent and impeding tax laws, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-02
The court held that the defendant's jurisdictional argument is frivolous, but the motion cannot be denied without proper notice and opportunity to amend under Castro v. United States.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-04
The court held that trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective for failing to challenge the government's jurisdiction, as the argument was meritless and the court indisputably had jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-18
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other grounds for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were without merit, as they were either procedurally barred, contradicted by the record, or failed to meet the high standards required for such cla
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-09-28
The court held that the movant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and reliance on illegally obtained evidence lack merit and are procedurally barred or contradicted by the record.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-06
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied because his guilty pleas were voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and the federal court had proper jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-01-04
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit and denied his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.