Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 11(C)(1)

14 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Laszlo Pomazi
  851 F.2d 244· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the district court did not err in ordering restitution, as the amount was not limited by the charging instrument and the government's recommendation did not breach the plea agreement.
• United States v. Latroy D. RAY
  828 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the district court failed to strictly comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting the guilty pleas, these failures constituted harmless error because the defendants understood the nature of the charges and there was a sufficient factua
• United States v. Salva
  902 F.2d 483· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court was not required to inform the defendant of the likely sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and that it was permissible to consider drug quantities from dismissed charges in calculating the base offense level.
• United States v. Corn
  836 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 does not authorize restitution for losses suffered before January 1, 1983.
• United States v. Carey
  884 F.2d 547· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court's failure to inform a defendant about supervised release at a plea hearing does not require vacating the conviction if substantial rights were not affected.
• United States v. Cumbie
  569 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appeals regarding alleged failures to inform of maximum penalties and consideration of dropped charges were untimely and dismissed. The appeal concerning sentence reduction motions was affirmed as sentences were within statutory limits and not an abuse of
• Doganiere v. United States
  914 F.2d 165· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's failure to attach required findings to the presentence report was a ministerial error that could be corrected by ordering the report amended, and that the prisoner's other claims lacked merit.
• United States v. Adams
  961 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court failed to establish an adequate factual basis for the guilty plea to misprision of a felony, this error was harmless because the record as a whole contained sufficient evidence of affirmative concealment.
• United States v. Pogue
  865 F.2d 226· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a Rule 11 violation regarding the failure to inform a defendant of the possibility of restitution can warrant vacatur of a sentence if the defendant demonstrates prejudice and a credible explanation for not raising the issue earlier.
• United States v. Garcia-Garcia
  939 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's complete failure to advise the defendant of the possibility or effect of supervised release during the guilty plea colloquy was not harmless error because the potential restraint on liberty exceeded the maximum penalty advised.
• Hinman v. United States
  730 F.2d 649· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that special parole is distinct from a sentence of confinement and thus does not count towards the maximum sentence limit in a plea bargain, and that the district court complied with Rule 11 requirements.
• United States v. Castro
  736 F.3d 1308· 11th Cir.· 2013-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the district court's single comment regarding the penal consequences of rejecting a plea agreement did not constitute plain error warranting vacatur of the guilty plea. The court found that the defendant fail
• United States v. Hekimain
  975 F.2d 1098· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's failure to properly inform the defendant of the effects of supervised release and its power to depart upward from the sentencing guidelines constituted a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, rendering the guilty plea involun
• United States v. Rogers
  984 F.2d 314· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-22
  The court held that a Rule 11 violation for failing to inform a defendant of the possibility of restitution does not automatically require vacating the plea, and the district court should have the discretion to resentence without restitution or allow withdrawal of the plea.