-
911 F.2d 1011·
5th Cir.·
1990-08-30
·cited 10×
The court held that the jury's consideration of extrinsic evidence, specifically a chart excluded from evidence, tainted the verdict, entitling the defendant to a new trial.
-
858 F.2d 254·
5th Cir.·
1988-10-11
·cited 10×
-
837 F.2d 276·
6th Cir.·
1988-01-21
·cited 10×
A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) does not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and even if it did, no violation occurred in this case. Furthermore, the court found no reversible error regarding jury instructions, ineff
-
983 F.2d 1563·
10th Cir.·
1993-01-28
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained through consent searches, admitting recorded conversations, refusing certain jury instructions, or applying the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also found no reversible error r
-
962 F.2d 263·
2d Cir.·
1992-05-06
·cited 8×
The court held that a conspiracy to kidnap qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and that the prosecutor's summation did not impermissibly amend the indictment.
-
929 F.2d 554·
10th Cir.·
1991-03-29
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding the admissibility of prior convictions, duplicate tapes, transcripts, jury instructions, or the interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), and affirmed the conviction.
-
827 F.2d 864·
1st Cir.·
1987-09-03
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of a predicate act under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and that the appeal was properly before the court.
-
820 F.2d 118·
5th Cir.·
1987-06-15
·cited 8×
The court held that the defendant's retrial was not barred by the double jeopardy clause, as the prior reversal was not based on evidentiary insufficiency, and that the retrial commenced within the Speedy Trial Act's time limits.
-
977 So. 2d 572·
Fla.·
2007-12-13
·cited 7×
Ernest Charles Downs appealed the trial court's denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief in a 1977 capital murder case, arguing that instructing the jury to disregard the firearm-use finding constituted a fatal variance and constructive amendment of his indictmen
-
878 F.2d 1355·
11th Cir.·
1989-08-03
·cited 7×
The court held that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment and that a legal duty to disclose accurate, complete, and current cost or pricing data arose as a matter of law under the Truth in Negotiations Act and Federal Acquisition Regulations.
-
743 F.2d 1547·
11th Cir.·
1984-10-16
·cited 7×
The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in acquitting a drug smuggler, arguing sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
964 F.2d 365·
5th Cir.·
1992-06-15
·cited 6×
The court affirmed Green's convictions for mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and money laundering, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting his challenges to the indictment.
-
965 F.2d 906·
10th Cir.·
1992-05-28
·cited 6×
The court held that the government's conduct was not so outrageous as to violate due process, the district court's clarification of 'fronting' did not constructively amend the indictment, and the court correctly determined it lacked discretion to depart below the statutory minimu
-
923 F.2d 917·
1st Cir.·
1991-01-23
·cited 6×
A guilty plea is not knowing and intelligent if the defendant is not informed of all essential elements of the charged offense, particularly when the court and prosecution also appear to misunderstand the jurisdictional requirements.
-
918 F.2d 319·
2d Cir.·
1990-09-21
·cited 6×
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 241 applies to conspiracies by officials to violate constitutional rights, and that false arrest constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process. The court also found that prosecutorial comments on the defendants' failure to present eviden
-
807 F.2d 1299·
6th Cir.·
1986-12-23
·cited 6×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. § 208 (conflict of interest) and 18 U.S.C. § 201(g) (illegal gratuity), and that the proofs did not prejudicially vary from the indictment.
-
794 F.2d 1011·
5th Cir.·
1986-07-18
·cited 6×
The court granted a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding that a jury instruction issue presented a debatable question among jurists of reason.
-
609 F.2d 246·
6th Cir.·
1979-10-26
·cited 6×
The court held that the defendant's conviction was not a violation of double jeopardy and that evidence obtained from a search was admissible.
-
4 F.4th 1171·
11th Cir.·
2021-07-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not constructively amend the indictment by instructing the jury that knowledge of the victim's age was not required for the enticement charge, but that conviction for both possession and receipt of child pornography violated the Double J
-
984 F.2d 1476·
7th Cir.·
1993-02-08
·cited 4×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and firearm convictions, and that Angela's sentencing enhancements were not clearly erroneous.
-
956 F.2d 181·
8th Cir.·
1992-02-06
·cited 4×
The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the perjury convictions and that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment or mislead the jury.
-
954 F.2d 79·
2d Cir.·
1992-01-14
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the convictions for conspiracy, theft from an interstate shipment, mail fraud, and wire fraud, but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing.
-
939 F.2d 197·
4th Cir.·
1991-07-11
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing supplemental voir dire, admitting tax returns and secretary's testimony, denying a motion for acquittal based on variance, or giving a willful blindness instruction.
-
833 F.2d 741·
8th Cir.·
1987-11-16
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions did not impermissibly amend the indictment, and any misjoinder of defendants was harmless error.
-
775 F.2d 612·
5th Cir.·
1985-10-28
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not constructively amend the indictment and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdicts.
-
682 F.2d 589·
6th Cir.·
1982-07-08
·cited 4×
The court held that the indictment, though inartfully drafted, provided sufficient notice of the charges and was not constructively amended, allowing the conviction to stand.
-
527 F.2d 165·
2d Cir.·
1975-11-26
·cited 4×
The court affirmed convictions for mail fraud and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, finding no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings or interpretations.
-
639 F. Supp. 176·
M.D. Fla.·
1986-04-04
·cited 3×
The court held that the Dowling decision, which clarified that pirate recordings are not 'stolen' under the National Stolen Property Act, should be applied retroactively to vacate convictions under that statute, but did not affect wire fraud or RICO convictions.
-
119 F.4th 862·
11th Cir.·
2024-10-04
·cited 2×
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for theft of government property and making false claims, and that the False Claims Act was not void for vagueness as applied.
-
94 F.4th 1267·
11th Cir.·
2024-02-29
·cited 2×
The court held that the government need only prove a defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance, not that they knew the specific type of controlled substance, to obtain a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846.
-
995 F.2d 290·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-06-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the jury instructions impermissibly broadened the indictment, allowing conviction for conduct not charged, thus constituting plain error requiring reversal.
-
978 F.2d 879·
5th Cir.·
1992-11-19
·cited 2×
The court held that even if the jury charge constructively amended the indictment, the error was harmless due to a stipulation and the defendants' failure to object, thus denying rehearing.
-
969 F.2d 1·
2d Cir.·
1992-07-17
·cited 2×
The court held that the indictment was constructively amended at trial and that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations because the conspiracy terminated when the primary object, Meir's green card, was obtained.
-
969 F.2d 9·
2d Cir.·
1992-07-17
·cited 2×
The court held that the conspiracy conviction must be reversed due to constructive amendment of the indictment and the statute of limitations, but the conviction for making false statements to the INS is affirmed as it was timely prosecuted.
-
965 F.2d 340·
7th Cir.·
1992-06-04
·cited 2×
The court held that the indictment was constitutionally sufficient and that the evidence supported the defendant's conviction for mail fraud.
-
892 F.2d 649·
7th Cir.·
1990-01-04
·cited 2×
The court held that the term 'moneys' in the indictment was sufficient to encompass the conversion of checks, thus there was no variance or amendment of the indictment.
-
621 F.2d 62·
3d Cir.·
1980-04-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the jury instructions on intent, the scope of cross-examination of character witnesses, and the admission of evidence related to uncharged false testimony did not constitute reversible error.
-
11th Cir.·
2025-11-05
The court held that the admission of the minor victim's statements during a sting operation did not violate the Confrontation Clause or the rule against hearsay, and that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-01
The court held that the movant's Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment was untimely and failed to show extraordinary circumstances, and that the district court did not commit a Clisby error.
-
141 F.4th 1217·
11th Cir.·
2025-06-25
The court held that the government's evidence and arguments were consistent with the indictment for violating 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1), and the district court's jury instructions and response to a jury question were not reversible error.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-27
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's one-year statute of limitations. The court also denied his motion to amend with additional claims, finding they did not relate back to th
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-04-10
Matthew Tassin, convicted of distributing and possessing child pornography discovered during a search of his home and online accounts, sought to vacate his 240-month sentence by alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and constructive amendment of his indic
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-11-29
The court denied in part and dismissed in part the motion to vacate, finding most claims procedurally barred or meritless.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-18
Sayton Waller, an inmate convicted in 2015 of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, and shooting deadly missiles, filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses a
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-10
The court held that a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-04-04
The court held that the movant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were without merit and denied his motion to vacate sentence.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-15
The court held that the prisoner's motion to vacate his convictions and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 should be denied because his claims lack merit, are procedurally barred, or are procedurally defaulted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-10-04
The court held that the movant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, both trial and appellate, were meritless and denied the motion to vacate sentence.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-21
Timothy John Miers challenged his federal convictions for kidnapping and interstate domestic violence through a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective and that his sentence violated double jeopardy protections. The district court denied
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-09-28
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.