-
533 F.2d 815·
2d Cir.·
1976-04-02
·cited 60×
The court held that the Southern and Eastern District indictments charged distinct conspiracies, and the plea bargain on the Eastern District indictment did not confer immunity for the Southern District prosecution.
-
554 F.2d 1219·
1st Cir.·
1977-05-20
·cited 39×
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to hold a Rule 11 hearing for a codefendant, denying dismissal of the indictment despite a delay in informant disclosure, limiting cross-examination regarding contempt proceedings, denying a jury-waived trial, or in i
-
879 F.2d 975·
1st Cir.·
1989-07-19
·cited 28×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying pro hac vice admission due to ethical violations and that the defendant's guilty plea was valid, precluding ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
-
821 F.2d 76·
1st Cir.·
1987-06-23
·cited 28×
The court held that the government's failure to disclose a material term of the plea agreement, specifically that all codefendants had to plead guilty, constituted a violation of Rule 11(e)(2) that was not harmless error, providing a fair and just reason for the defendant to with
-
834 F.2d 426·
5th Cir.·
1987-12-08
·cited 26×
The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's double jeopardy claim, as the record was insufficient to resolve whether the two conspiracy charges constituted a single offense.
-
539 F.2d 282·
1st Cir.·
1976-08-13
·cited 26×
The court held that a guilty plea induced by defense counsel's misrepresentation of a prosecutor's promise to recommend a specific sentence can be vacated, even if the prosecutor made no such promise.
-
728 F.2d 676·
5th Cir.·
1984-03-15
·cited 22×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance to secure a codefendant's testimony, as the defendant failed to show the codefendant would testify and the Fifth Amendment privilege could still be invoked.
-
545 F.2d 684·
9th Cir.·
1976-11-30
·cited 22×
-
815 F.2d 827·
1st Cir.·
1987-04-07
·cited 20×
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant waived claims regarding the plea agreement abrogation and Rule 11 hearing by not raising them properly below, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised in the district court first.
-
618 F.2d 389·
5th Cir.·
1980-06-06
·cited 20×
The court should affirm the denial of the petition because McCord's allegations of a broken plea agreement are uncorroborated.
-
537 F.2d 1080·
9th Cir.·
1976-07-09
·cited 13×
A guilty plea generally waives independent claims of constitutional violations preceding the plea, but allegations of threats or promises outside the record may necessitate a hearing.
-
594 F.2d 276·
1st Cir.·
1979-03-14
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying the motion to withdraw a guilty plea without a hearing and without stating its reasons.
-
974 F.2d 1389·
4th Cir.·
1992-09-02
·cited 10×
The court should have allowed withdrawal of the guilty plea because counsel's mistaken advice provided a 'fair and just reason' under Rule 32(d).
-
948 F.2d 783·
1st Cir.·
1991-10-08
·cited 10×
The court held that a defendant's perjury during a plea withdrawal hearing mandates a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under the Sentencing Guidelines, and that a district court has no discretion to deny this enhancement.
-
793 F.2d 612·
5th Cir.·
1986-06-20
·cited 10×
A defendant must show a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, and the mere absence of prejudice to the government is insufficient if no credible reason is proffered.
-
956 F.2d 41·
4th Cir.·
1992-01-31
·cited 9×
The court held that the government breached the plea agreement by requiring cooperation when the agreement, as memorialized in a cover letter, explicitly stated cooperation would not be required, and that resentencing was the appropriate remedy.
-
964 F.2d 66·
1st Cir.·
1992-05-15
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, nor did it abuse its discretion in departing upward from the sentencing guidelines.
-
961 F.2d 685·
7th Cir.·
1992-04-14
·cited 8×
The court held that a defendant's claims of confusion and ineffective counsel regarding an entrapment defense were insufficient to require an evidentiary hearing for withdrawal of a guilty plea, especially when contradicted by Rule 11 statements. The court also affirmed sentencin
-
641 F.2d 1253·
9th Cir.·
1981-03-16
·cited 6×
The dissenting judge believes the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant competent to plead guilty, disagreeing with the majority's assessment.
-
825 F.2d 616·
1st Cir.·
1987-08-14
·cited 5×
Jeopardy did not attach when the district court accepted a guilty plea to a lesser included offense and then rejected the plea without imposing sentence or entering judgment, thus allowing reprosecution on greater charges.
-
929 F.2d 128·
4th Cir.·
1991-04-01
·cited 4×
The court held that juvenile adjudications can be used for sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines, and an alleged informal plea agreement is superseded by a later written plea agreement.
-
453 F.2d 1063·
3d Cir.·
1972-01-18
·cited 4×
The court held that the appellant's claims regarding a conditional guilty plea, erroneous sentencing information, and judicial prejudice were unsubstantiated and did not warrant overturning the sentence.
-
988 F.2d 712·
7th Cir.·
1993-03-10
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was valid and his sentence was properly calculated, affirming the district court's decisions.
-
949 F.2d 133·
4th Cir.·
1991-11-18
·cited 2×
The dissenting judge believes the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-12-14
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the motion to vacate sentence.
-
992 F.2d 755·
7th Cir.·
1993-05-07
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea without adequately explaining why her proffered entrapment defense was insufficient.
-
985 F.2d 175·
4th Cir.·
1993-02-08
The court held that the defendant failed to show a "fair and just reason" for withdrawing his guilty plea, as alleged ineffectiveness of counsel was not of constitutional magnitude and not a 'but-for' cause of the plea.