Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)

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

• United States v. Yater
  756 F.2d 1058· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 56×
  A defendant waives the entrapment defense by pleading guilty, and a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) does not preserve the entrapment issue for appeal. Furthermore, the government's conduct in this case did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to bar prosecution.
• United States v. Rivera
  825 F.2d 152· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that warrantless entry into a hotel room was justified by exigent circumstances, seizure of suitcases was permissible under plain view, and the automobile exception allowed warrantless search of a vehicle.
• United States v. Echegoyen
  799 F.2d 1271· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 44×
  A defendant's conditional guilty plea must be in writing to reserve appellate issues, and oral understandings are insufficient. Exigent circumstances, including a fire hazard and suspected drug activity, justified a warrantless entry, and subsequent entries were a continuation of
• United States v. Alexander
  761 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, probable cause existed for the arrest, and the denial of the motion to disclose informants' identities was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Kapperman
  764 F.2d 786· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the initial stop and subsequent detention of the defendants were lawful, and the search of the vehicle, including the suitcase, was valid based on consent.
• United States v. Lane
  909 F.2d 895· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and frisk, and that attempted burglary can qualify as a 'violent felony' for sentence enhancement under the ACCA based on the categorical approach.
• United States v. Fisher
  772 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 28×
  A defendant cannot withdraw a guilty plea based on not being informed of the possibility of a conditional plea, as neither the court nor the government has a duty to so inform them, and the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Williams
  754 F.2d 672· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the airport search and seizure of cocaine were constitutional, based on reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop and voluntary consent to search.
• United States v. Green
  847 F.2d 622· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 18×
  A notice of appeal filed after a conditional guilty plea but before sentencing is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction if the intent to appeal is clear and neither party is prejudiced.
• United States v. Rinaldi
  808 F.2d 1579· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment but that its findings regarding the independent nature of certain evidence were inadequate, requiring a remand for further evidentiary hearings.
• United States v. Radka
  904 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge's conclusion of exigent circumstances was supported by the record, warranting affirmance.
• United States v. Martinez
  764 F.2d 744· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the affidavit submitted to the magistrate, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, provided sufficient reliable facts to establish probable cause for the search warrant.
• United States v. Barbin
  743 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the sailboat was justified under the border search exception, even if the automobile exception was not fully applicable.
• United States v. Garza
  921 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the officer's frisk of the defendant was justified under Terry v. Ohio, and that prior burglary convictions could be used for sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on the indictments meeting the generic burglary definition.
• United States v. Eni Fernandez
  887 F.2d 564· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that probable cause existed to arrest the defendant, and therefore, the denial of her motion to suppress evidence was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Yasak
  884 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a conditional guilty plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) can be validly appealed even without a written reservation of rights, provided the government assents and the appeal will dispose of the case. The court also held that the defendant's arguments regarding l
• United States v. Duncan
  763 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by the pre-indictment delay and that the evidence seized from the vehicle was admissible under the Fourth Amendment's inventory search exception.
• United States v. Thompson
  928 F.2d 1060· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's search of the storage compartment was permissible under a safety inspection and that probable cause justified the subsequent search of the hidden compartment, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Aversa
  984 F.2d 493· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court's announced standard for currency law violations is sufficiently close to the subjective standard in Cheek to avoid punishing those with an innocent state of mind.
• United States v. Curcio
  712 F.2d 1532· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that certain constitutional claims, like vagueness and prejudicial publicity, may be properly reserved under a conditional guilty plea, but claims regarding statutory presumptions and conspiracy liability (Pinkerton) require a factual record and cannot be abstractl
• United States v. Cordell L. Tillman
  963 F.2d 137· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search was not voluntary due to coercive circumstances, and the Miranda warnings provided were inadequate, requiring suppression of statements and evidence.
• United States v. Rosen
  929 F.2d 839· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was accountable for the full quantity of marijuana knowingly accepted, and that the district court did not err in denying suppression motions or dismissing the indictment for outrageous conduct.
• United States v. Sherrie Tuggle Apple
  915 F.2d 899· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Stacy Apple lacked standing to challenge electronic surveillance due to insufficient evidence of his involvement, but Sherrie Apple made a sufficient showing, and the government's denial was inadequate. The court also remanded sentencing issues regarding firea
• The United States v. Kordosky
  878 F.2d 991· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search incident to arrest was legal because the arresting officer had probable cause, and the inventory search was lawful as it followed standard police procedures.
• United States v. Anibal Sarmiento
  786 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment jury instruction and that his conditional guilty plea, despite being improperly based on an appealable pretrial matter, was not grounds to withdraw the plea.
• United States v. Scott
  884 F.2d 1163· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an appeal challenging the sufficiency of a dismissed indictment is moot after a guilty plea to a subsequent information, and therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction.
• United States v. Ward
  757 F.2d 616· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a criminal contempt conviction for refusing to answer grand jury questions after being granted use immunity does not violate due process or double jeopardy, even if the defendant's prior refusal to cooperate was considered during sentencing for a previous offe
• United States v. Cortez
  973 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-24 ·cited 5×
  A guilty plea waives a selective prosecution claim unless it falls under a narrow exception, but a plea induced by a mistaken belief about its effect on preserving such claims is not knowing and voluntary.
• United States v. LEE
  937 F.2d 1388· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the Lacey Act's prohibition on importing fish taken in violation of foreign law applies to foreign regulations, not just statutes, and that the Act does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power or suffer from vagueness. It also affirmed that m
• United States v. Bulls
  918 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The trial court erred by admitting DNA evidence without determining the reliability of the FBI lab's testing procedures. The court must hold an expanded pre-trial hearing to assess scientific acceptability, procedural reliability, and potential prejudice.
• United States v. ANT
  882 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a guilty plea entered in tribal court, which complied with tribal law and the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), should not be suppressed in federal court.
• United States v. Wong Ching Hing
  867 F.2d 754· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the conditional guilty plea was improperly accepted because it did not comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) and the appellate issues were not clearly defined or dispositive. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is vacated and the case is re
• United States v. Maranzino
  860 F.2d 981· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prior indictment and plea did not bar the subsequent indictment on double jeopardy grounds, nor was there evidence of a promise not to prosecute further in the plea agreement.
• United States v. Vito Giacalone (87-1924)
  853 F.2d 470· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct an in camera examination of informants, as the defendants failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the government affiant lied. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion
• United States v. Hefner
  842 F.2d 731· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 4×
  An ineligible grand jury foreman does not require dismissal of an indictment if the error is harmless, and a de facto officer's administration of an oath is valid.
• United States v. March
  999 F.2d 456· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was admissible, the jury instruction error was harmless, and the denial of a sentence reduction was not clearly erroneous. The Judgment and Commitment Order contained a clerical error requiring correction.
• United States v. Wiley
  997 F.2d 378· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the government did not violate immunity agreements, evidence was admissible despite Miranda issues, forfeiture was supported, and speedy trial rights were not violated.
• United States v. Boggs
  739 F.2d 1376· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' conduct, involving receiving a rebate for freight transportation, violated 49 U.S.C. § 11903(a), as the recodification of the Elkins Act did not remove rebating from its prohibition and the defendants' brokerage activities were a sham.
• United States v. Sanfilippo
  91 F.4th 1380· 11th Cir.· 2024-02-08
  An unconditional guilty plea waives the right to appeal a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, as this is a non-jurisdictional defense.
• United States v. Milo Ayen
  997 F.2d 1150· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-23
• United States v. Trimble
  986 F.2d 394· 10th Cir.· 1993-02-18
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence and statements, as the traffic stop was valid, the defendant abandoned the contraband, and his subsequent statements were voluntary.
• United States v. Watson
  950 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24
  The court held that even if a search was illegal, evidence derived from it is admissible if sufficiently attenuated from the illegality, such as when the information merely facilitates a separate, independent investigation.
• United States v. Werking
  915 F.2d 1404· 10th Cir.· 1990-09-26
  The court held that the initial stop was lawful based on reasonable suspicion, the subsequent questioning was a consensual encounter, and the consent to search was voluntary, thus the evidence was admissible.