-
740 F.2d 339·
5th Cir.·
1984-08-17
·cited 62×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
645 F.2d 1269·
8th Cir.·
1981-02-09
·cited 56×
The court held that the district court did not err in its application of the Speedy Trial Act, its rulings on the insanity defense and expert witness qualifications, or its jury instructions. However, the court vacated the sentence imposed on count I due to a potential due proces
-
885 F.2d 1266·
5th Cir.·
1989-09-29
·cited 40×
The court held that the district court erred by failing to make findings on disputed sentencing facts and by departing from the guidelines without adequate explanation, requiring a remand for resentencing.
-
552 F.2d 223·
8th Cir.·
1977-03-22
·cited 34×
The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and that there was a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea.
-
917 F.2d 1178·
9th Cir.·
1990-10-26
·cited 25×
The court held that the district court properly applied the arson sentencing guideline based on stipulated facts, even though the conviction was for mail fraud, and that the refusal to grant a continuance for a psychological evaluation was not an abuse of discretion.
-
949 F.2d 722·
5th Cir.·
1991-12-13
·cited 22×
The court held that the district court's omissions in advising the defendant of his rights under Rule 11 were harmless errors, and that the defendant had adequate opportunity to contest the factual basis for sentencing enhancements.
-
862 F.2d 101·
6th Cir.·
1988-12-05
·cited 18×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to establish a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea to misprision of a felony, rendering the plea unknowing.
-
611 F.2d 918·
1st Cir.·
1979-12-19
·cited 18×
The court held that a guilty plea induced by counsel's legal opinion on the effect of a plea agreement, rather than a misrepresentation of the agreement's terms, does not render the plea involuntary. The court also found no violation of the plea agreement regarding parole opposit
-
893 F.2d 73·
5th Cir.·
1990-01-11
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court must explicitly determine on the record whether a stipulation in a guilty plea specifically establishes a more serious offense than the offense of conviction before applying the guidelines for that more serious offense.
-
860 F.2d 992·
10th Cir.·
1988-11-04
·cited 11×
The court held that an Alford guilty plea, entered by a defendant protesting innocence, is invalid without strong evidence presented at the plea taking to substantiate guilt.
-
694 F.2d 155·
8th Cir.·
1982-12-01
·cited 10×
The court held that the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel because the trial court's inquiry was perfunctory and lacked a penetrating discussion of the consequences.
-
638 F.2d 651·
3d Cir.·
1981-01-19
·cited 10×
The dissenting judge holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendant's guilty plea due to an insufficient factual basis and potential protestation of innocence.
-
920 F.2d 287·
5th Cir.·
1991-01-04
·cited 8×
A guilty plea to bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 requires a factual basis demonstrating the defendant defrauded a financial institution or obtained funds by false pretenses; a plea lacking such basis can be vacated, and the defendant may be allowed to plead anew.