/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query firearm gun returned 4466 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the government's petition for rehearing en banc. Was convicted after a trial by jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. That the proof submitted to the jury was not constitutionally sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Local police officers were dispatched to a Memphis address and found a young woman upset to the point that she was having difficulty speaking. The officers later learned that the young woman's name was Tamica Gordon. The young woman the police met was apparently also the same woman who made the 911 call. A car pulled up to the address where Gordon and the officers were conversing. A woman was driving the car. A man was in the passenger seat. She pointed at the car and told the officers that the man in it was the same man who had pointed a gun at her. No weapons were found. Arnold was cooperative and did not attempt to elude the police or run away. The gun was in a clear plastic bag when the police located it.
953 USA V. ANDERSON
858 OPINION/ORDER
849 OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide whether Marlon Garth is procedurally barred from collaterally challenging his guilty plea to the charge of
843 UNITED STATES V. REED

In his opening statement defense counsel argued that defendant did not
843 OPINION/ORDER
Is one of the dealers that received this demand letter. Bob's Gun Shop also asserted that the criteria used by the Bureau to target the selected dealers were arbitrary and capricious. 2274 (2002). 2 Bob's Gun Shop suggests this case is moot because the Bureau changed some of the selection criteria for its new demand letter issued in 2002. The change in criteria does not affect the issue in this case whether the criteria used to select Bob's Gun Shop to receive the 2000 demand letter were arbitrary and capricious. 1 BLAUSTEIN & REICH v. See 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).3 The Bureau is required to issue a license to any applicant that meets all the statutory qualifications and agrees to abide by the applicable laws. Or dealer that holds such a license is commonly referred to as a federal firearms licensee (an FFL). Bob's Gun Shop is an FFL dealer. The licensing authority was transferred to the Department of Justice. § 178 was recently redesignated as § 478. The FFL in the chain of distribution must report all or any portion of the information it is statutorily required to maintain for each firearm.
841 OPINION/ORDER
Stephanie Cannon and Keith Anthony Cannon were convicted of various drug and firearm conduct offenses. in They of challenge their the validity of their and convictions. A reasonable jury could have found the following. An undercover officer with the West Central Minnesota Drug Task Force. were videotaped. When the parties were introduced by a confidential informant. Defendants sold cocaine base to Agent Sherbrooke and told him they were interested in acquiring firearms. again in Alexandria within a week. Defendants sold more cocaine base to Sherbrooke less than a week later. interested in When Sherbrooke asked Defendants whether they were still obtaining firearms. Defendants again indicated their The parties made arrangements to meet The first transaction was recorded on audio tape. He explained that the When Sherbrooke deal would have to take place in North Dakota. Because there was an arrest warrant out for his supplier in Minnesota. kidded Defendants about their reasons for wanting the weapons. Defendants said they were
834 OPINION/ORDER
A United States Postal worker who was delivering mail in Chatsworth. Ileto's sole surviving dependent parent and three of the children who were shot at the JCC filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against multiple defendants involved in the manufacture. The case was removed to federal district court. All motions were granted. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their public nuisance and state law negligence claims.1 Because the plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim under California tort law for negligence and public nuisance against 1 When we refer to
830 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge.
Raymond Dean Brown was convicted after a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 115 months for the first two counts and 360 months for the third. Brown asserts (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of carrying a machine gun during and in relation to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Which was located near Rock Springs. Brown was cooking methamphetamine. Brown manufactured methamphetamine almost continuously from the time they returned to Wyoming at the end of October until they were arrested in mid November. Brown's initial instinct was to escape via Albertsons' back exit. They were surrounded by police. Who were seeking Ms. Brown's machine gun was later found in an unzipped bag and loaded with two magazines of bullets. Worrell was arrested. Brown was also arrested. While he was being questioned by the police. He was captured after he hurt himself during the escape and was taken to the hospital. Where a one gram package of methamphetamine was recovered from his sock.
825 OPINION/ORDER
Ben Mullins was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The district court1 also found that he was an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Which was a Mondial Brevettata Model 1938 .22 caliber starter gun. There was no dispute at trial that Mullins was a convicted felon. The jury found that his possession of the starter gun was possession of a
810 OPINION/ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Jerome Hadley was charged in a single count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was found guilty by a jury following a two day trial. Was sentenced to a 262 month term of imprisonment. Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing under the rule announced in United States v. Were hosting a few friends and relatives at their residence on North Moore Road in Chattanooga. The dispatcher further advised Officer Williams that the 911 call was on an
801 OPINION/ORDER
He contends that the district court's enhancement of his sentence pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline (
794 OPINION/ORDER
Were indicted in the Western District of Michigan on drug and firearms charges. The defendants were charged in Count 1 with conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute over five grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846. Cobbs was also charged with distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) (Counts 2 and 3). Cornell stated that he would have to go somewhere to pick up the crack. Who was accompanied by a male passenger later identified as Mansour Harrell. The rocks of crack cocaine were individually wrapped in
792 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the District Court in all respects. Are straightforward. Was apprehended by police shortly thereafter. Although Williams initially denied involvement in the bank robbery and explained his flight from the police as a reaction to having an illegal gun in the car he was apprehended with a paper bag containing $822. [H]e was in another neighborhood other than his own so he had carried it the night before so he had had it with him.
790 OPINION/ORDER
Which they knew and had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone. She was acquitted on Count 2. We conclude that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. They were off to shoot bottles at a rural gravel pit. In which she was the front passenger and Kelly was the driver. She stated that she put the gun in the car before entering the school zone and that she could have grabbed the gun at any time. Benally believed that she possessed the firearm when she entered the school zone and testified that no one was allowed to take the shotgun from the car seat without her permission. Kelly testified similarly: he would not have driven to the school with the gun in the car if Benally or her sister instructed him not to do so. Both cussing at Kelly and acting as if he was going to smash Kelly's windows with the bat. It appeared that a fight was about to occur. Why Kelly grabbed the gun is a matter of debate.
788 OPINION/ORDER
2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
788 OPINION/ORDER
Charles Navarro was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment on August 19. We will affirm the District Court's sentence. Navarro was wanted on state charges of aggravated assault. Managed to escape capture.2 Section 2K2.1(b)(5) was renumbered in November 2006. Is now section 2K2.1(b)(6). Because this case is based on the Guidelines as they existed before November 2006. Navarro waited until the officer's vehicle was stopped. This latter incident was the basis of the aggravated assault charge that predicated the most recent traffic pursuit. 3 2 1 Navarro left behind some incriminating evidence. A local resident provided the police with a jacket that was found near the scene of the crash. Navarro was subsequently arrested and. Navarro was initially charged by state authorities with two counts of possession of a controlled substance. These charges were subsequently dismissed in favor of federal prosecution. He was not. Therefore there was no plea agreement. Was simple possession of cocaine and marijuana. Is not a felony.
788 OPINION/ORDER
Thomas Price was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of armed bank robbery. Price was charged with violating this provision in the district court. The government is not required to show that the defendant actually displayed or fired the weapon. The government is required. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was under defendant's control at the time the crime of violence was committed. Even though there is no proof that he actually had the firearm in his physical possession. That his action was willful and voluntarily taken and that he had knowledge that a firearm was to be used in the bank robbery. The two issues regarding this instruction are. Whether having a firearm available to assist is sufficient to meet the second element of
788 OPINION/ORDER
1998 and was sentenced on October 6. Finding that he was not actually innocent of the § 924(c) charge and thus declining to answer whether actual innocence is sufficient grounds to waive the period of limitations for filing of a § 2255 motion. Inspector Bennett agreed to the methamphetamine for guns deal and stated he would inform Montano when the guns were available. He was immediately arrested. Montano was arrested with approximately 117.2 grams of methamphetamine in his possession. Montano's presentence report also reveals that he was involved in a 111.1 gram cocaine transaction on October 20. Montano was indicted on May 28. 1998 and Montano was indicted along with three co defendants: Ignacio Chavez Mendez (a/k/a
788 OPINION/ORDER
Defendant/Appellant Jerry Lee Williams was found guilty following a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Lacy indicated that two customers who had been sitting at the back of the restaurant had told him that a black male at a table in the back of the restaurant was waving a gun around underneath the table. Lacy testified that he recognized the two customers because they were regulars. The first patron to report the gun waving incident indicated that the man with the gun was sitting in a group of six individuals in the corner of the restaurant. Were sitting. Williams was intoxicated to some degree. Who was sitting in the chair nearest the officers. There was a discrepancy in the testimony about exactly where Williams was seated. While everyone agreed that Miller was seated on the outside of the table near the walkway. The officers testified that Williams was seated a little distance away from him. Testified that Williams was sitting right next to Miller. The officers repeatedly told Williams and Miller to place and keep their hands on the table so their hands were visible.
783 OPINION/ORDER
He also claims that his sentence should not have been enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Laughrin from past traffic violations and was aware his license had previously been suspended. Laughrin over to determine whether he was driving with a valid license. Laughrin admitted he did not have any paperwork with him regarding the car. Laughrin's license was valid. As Officer Riley was speaking to Mr. The gun was easily within reach of both Mr. Michel attempt to reach behind the seat toward the area where the weapon was located. Nor whether he was actually specifically reaching for the gun. The officer also testified he did not have any knowledge as to how the gun came to be in Mr. Michel were told to
exit the vehicle and were temporarily handcuffed while the officers removed the gun. Which neither had a serial number nor was registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Was a Mossberg .410 gauge shotgun with an overall length of seventeen and a half inches and a barrel length of ten and three eights inches.
783 OPINION/ORDER
Kelvin Mondale Newsom was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a term of 86 months of imprisonment. Newsom was driven to his mother's residence by a friend. Newsom told Blacksmith that
777 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Richard E. On the brief were David W. Arguing that temporary retention of data for at most six months is neces sary to audit the background check system to ensure both its accuracy and privacy. If the firearm dealer is in a state that has elected to serve as a
777 UNITED STATES V. WILSON (8/12/1999, NO. 96-6202)

Circuit Judge:

Christopher Wilson and Eric Herndon were convicted in separate trials of charges relating to the trafficking of crack cocaine.

777 UNITED STATES V. WILSON (8/12/1999, NO. 96-6202)

Circuit Judge:

Christopher Wilson and Eric Herndon were convicted in separate trials of charges relating to the trafficking of crack cocaine.

763 00-5012 -- U.S. V. IILAND -- 07/03/2001

Circuit Judge.

Sidney Ronnell Iiland and sixteen others were named in a multicount indictment charging numerous offenses involving drug trafficking. Iiland was convicted after a jury trial of distributing various controlled substances. (3) he was prejudiced by going to trial with three other codefendants. (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court held defendants had failed to rebut the presumption that the wiretap orders were proper. Recordings of intercepted calls obtained through these wiretaps were played for the jury at trial. We disagree.

Electronic eavesdropping by law enforcement officials is governed by the federal wiretap statute. Under which the officer must establish and the court must find that

763 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judges.(2) Te'Aire Curls was convicted. Curls argues that the district court erred in denying his motions (1) to dismiss the superceding indictment on the grounds that the indictment appearing in the public file was not signed by the grand jury foreman. Curls argues that (7) his sentence is unreasonable. We are not persuaded by Mr. Assisted by an agent from the United States Bureau of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Alcohol. Curls was riding. Was Sean Ali Williams. Curls who owned the car and who the driver was. Curls responded that it was his mother's car and that the driver was Mr. Curls
759 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief. Argued the cause for the appellee and was on the brief. Were also on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether there exists an
757 OPINION/ORDER
Jermaine Frederick was convicted by a federal jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of 138 months of imprisonment. Frederick's challenges to his conviction are without merit. (The raid was pursuant to a search warrant. The validity of which is not in dispute.). The two bedrooms in the apartment were referred to in the subsequent trial as the north bedroom and the south bedroom. Along with several other people who were in the apartment at the time. Another loaded drum magazine was nearby. That were later stipulated to contain marijuana. Some of the marijuana bags were inside a wall safe that contained various documents with Frederick's name on them. He was a felon who was not allowed to possess firearms. Frederick was indicted and charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Turner said that this was Frederick's residence. The north bedroom was Frederick's bedroom. Who believed that he was
754 OPINION/ORDER
Attys. was on the brief. Was on the brief. Which was separated from her bedroom with a curtain and connected to her kitchen through a large. The handgun was found unloaded in a plastic bag in a drawer under her bed. The drawer was blocked by a duffel bag. The other screen was determined to have been a false positive. Was tried and convicted by the district court on October 9. Is that correct?
754 OPINION/ORDER
United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: Ronald James Toms (
750 OPINION/ORDER
The question on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it applied U.S.S.G. He claims the reason he carried the gun was that. We will affirm. The dispute is over the meaning of the phrase
748 OPINION/ORDER
We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted. Was dismissed prior to trial. Were tried before a jury. He was sentenced to 115 months imprisonment on the drug crimes. He was also sentenced to a consecutive five year term on Count One. Were approached by several males who offered to sell them marijuana and crack cocaine. One of the individuals who was present but did not 4 participate in the sale was Clifford Timmons. That Timmons was not surprised when the undercover officers asked about getting two
748 UNITED STATES V. TIMMONS (2/26/2002, NO. 00-15795)

We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.

748 OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(b). Which provides for an enhanced penalty where a defendant (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Gruber that the government did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he
748 UNITED STATES V. TIMMONS (2/26/2002, NO. 00-15795)

We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.

748 OPINION/ORDER
Upon which his federal indictment is based. Was apprehended after a short foot chase.
746 00-4107 -- U.S. V. WALTERS -- 10/31/2001

That the puncture wounds on her hands were made by the rings Walters wore. Which had protruding metal ornaments.

Avery told officers that Walters had been driving an older model red and white pickup truck and was staying in a camper trailer parked next to his brother's house in Kearns. Was

743 OPINION/ORDER
Defendant appellant Richard Nance was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court determined that Nance was an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 235 months. Which was at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. As a result of a routine patdown of McPhearson during which drugs were discovered. While the warrant was being obtained. Nance was subsequently indicted and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm
743 USA V. HARRISON GEORGE
741 OPINION/ORDER
Joseph Fleischli was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). Fleischli was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. Gibbs told the deputy that Fleischli was a licensed firearms manufacturer who owned a minigun and wanted to add to his collection. The ATF learned that SAS was incorporated in 1996 by Delmar and Diamonda Tobias. Who were Fleischli's father in law and mother in law. Delmar No. 01 2703 3 Tobias1 was listed as president and Medlock was the secretary/treasurer. The ATF was therefore already familiar with Fleischli when Captain Jeff Rhodes called from the Sheriff's Department to tell them about Gibbs' conversation with Deputy Malone. That SAS was Tobias's company and that he (Fleischli) was just an employee. Tobias told the agents that SAS was Fleischli's idea and that Tobias was simply a 1 Hereafter we will use the name
739 OPINION/ORDER
Inside were three individuals: Vaneshia Taylor (
739 UNITED STATES V. WACKER

The modifications are as follows: 1. These defendants were charged only with firearm
739 OPINION/ORDER
ORDER We have received a motion by the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada seeking modification of the written opinions in this case (both the majority opinion and the partial concurrence partial dissent). The motion is granted in part. The one modification that the motion seeks is its elimination of the word
737 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Page 4: insert as line 1. P.C. were on consolidated briefs for appellants Enrique Gray Santana and Donald E. P.C. were on brief for appellant Ramon E. Was on briefs for the United States. Who were Vasquez's co defendants. I. Background 4 Most of the facts are not in dispute. Cleveland and Gray were paged by Rodriguez. The Drug Enforcement Administration was investigating one Juan Pagan. The DEA had information that Pagan was shipping large amounts of cocaine from Puerto Rico to New England. The first was a Lexus. The second was a Lincoln. Acosta and Rodriguez were observed examining its back seat area. To where the Isuzu was parked. Vasquez was next observed sitting in the back seat of the Mazda. The four men were told they were under arrest. While he was in custody. Vasquez was tried by a jury and convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with 7 intent to distribute and of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy and possession charges and was also sentenced to 120 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release. 8 wrongful de facto arrest occurred when he was initially ordered out of the Mazda and handcuffed.
732 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We consider whether Darrell Anthony Gautt's constitutional due process right to be informed of the charges against him was violated when he was charged with a sentencing enhancement under one statute. Was alleged by number and by nearly verbatim description in the information. We hold that Gautt's due process right was indeed violated when. He was sentenced pursuant to a twenty five year tolife enhancement. Ordering that the state release Gautt unless it re sentences him.2 All citations are to the 1998 version of the California Penal Code. Arguing that his equal protection rights were violated when the prosecution exercised its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. LEWIS I The barebones facts of Gautt's crime are that on January 10. The facts that do matter here are procedural and concern the content of Gautt's information. A conviction under section 12022.53(b) translates into a ten year sentence enhancement.3 The information Section 1203.06(a)(1)(A) provides a different penalty than is provided for by section 12022.53(b).
732 OPINION/ORDER
Who unsuccessfully moved to have the gun suppressed on the ground that it was seized unlawfully. Holding that the search and seizure of Ubiles was unlawful. We will reverse. The Terry stop in this case was not supported by reasonable suspicion
732 OPINION/ORDER
PER CURIAM: Defendant appellant Donald Caldwell was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He contends that he was entitled to a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2)1 based on his brother's possession of the firearm for sporting purposes. The evidence at trial established that Caldwell was on supervised release following his conviction and imprisonment for a controlled substance offense. He was living in a house on 119 acres of land that belonged to the Caldwell family. Were on the property with any regularity. Which was a type of gun commonly used for sporting. Was out of town for work and was unable to remove the gun. When Caldwell realized Charles was unavailable. He claims he did this to get rid of the gun and because he thought he was complying with the law. Caldwell was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Caldwell's theory of defense was that. Caldwell requested that the jury be instructed that 3 [i]t is the theory of the defense that Donald Caldwell's actions of taking the rifle from his home to the pawn shop and pawning the rifle was done to dispossess the firearm from himself.
730 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee. The court determined that the applicable guideline was U.S.S.G. 2K2.1 (1990). Codefendant David Jackson was the leader of a group of persons who were running a cocaine and cocaine base distribution enterprise out of an apartment at 49 Theodore Street in Dorchester. One of whom was defendant Charles Brown. Brown mentioned that he was going to check about obtaining the gun. Told the CI that Jackson was the
730 UNITED STATES V. QUINN

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Coley Quinn was charged with conspiring to possess cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) with the intent to distribute it. That it was a further purpose of the conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine). [sic] also were charged in all counts.<p> Quinn and his codefendants pled guilty. Quinn thereafter was permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Was found guilty as charged.<p> Prior to sentencing. Were arrested on April 14. A confidential informant had told Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1874p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The base offense level is 20. Enhancement of the base offense level is mandated whenever the generic crime of robbery has especially hurtful consequences (e.g. Serious bodily injury or the loss of property of great value) or is carried out in conjunction with any of the other forms of disapproved conduct that the Sentencing Commission has particularized under the heading </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-4224.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. QUINN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Coley Quinn was charged with conspiring to possess cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) with the intent to distribute it. That it was a further purpose of the conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine). [sic] also were charged in all counts.<p> Quinn and his codefendants pled guilty. Quinn thereafter was permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Was found guilty as charged.<p> Prior to sentencing. Were arrested on April 14. A confidential informant had told Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411658.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That § 922(d) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. Because sufficient evidence was presented at trial for the jury to conclude that Peters knowingly sold a firearm and ammunition to a convicted felon. Peters was a federally licensed firearms dealer from 1994 until his license expired in April 2001. ATF Agent Nick Cheremeta had seen Peters at gun shows and knew that he was no longer a licensed firearms dealer. He employed a confidential informant to determine whether Peters was still selling guns out of his store. 2 The confidential informant. Was born Gary Bruce Wilson and. John was convicted of one count of felony aggravated assault in the Superior Court of Tattnall County. John was given his new name and assigned a new social security number. John's first contact with Peters was on April 11. This is all my personal stuff. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964126.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Police officers were summoned to the home of Genavy Jackson. Jackson asked the officers 2 if he could get his gun for protection while he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051974np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming his conviction was based on insufficient evidence and the jury instructions given at his trial were incorrect. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Which object the officer believed was a gun. After Lloyd was handcuffed. Lloyd did not have a permit to carry this gun. Lloyd was then indicted for distributing less than five grams of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) (Count One) and for carrying a firearm during and in relation to his drug trafficking crime and possessing the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime. A jury found Lloyd guilty on both counts of the indictment and he was sentenced to 84 months' incarceration. Lloyd argues the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the conclusion that he used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a drug crime or possessed a firearm in furtherance of the crime because the gun's presence was never revealed to the CI during the drug transaction. This is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974811.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each of whom was convicted on drug related charges following a joint trial in the West2 ern District of Virginia. The parties have raised numerous assertions of error on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/59EC7C574037890B8825721F00839A3D/$file/0410504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A substituted amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be allowed. Arreola was seated in the second of three rows of seats. Two of Arreola's associates were seated in the front seats. A confidential informant was seated with Arreola. Arreola and his two associates were arrested. The handgun was positioned such that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B0675594A6079778825715B00838AB5/$file/0410504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arreola was seated in the second of three rows of seats. Two of Arreola's associates were seated in the front seats. A confidential informant was seated with Arreola. Arreola and his two associates were arrested. The handgun was positioned such that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942430.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial. The brief fails to provide any citation to the record in support of this assertion. 2 1 A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. It is not necessary for it to establish that the weapon was fired. It is sufficient if the proof establishes that the firearm furthered the commission of the drug trafficking crime or was an integral part of the underlying drug trafficking crime being committed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/94-2430.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MOUNT (11/25/1998, NO. 94-2430)<BR></A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network.</P> <P> In the early morning hours of November 21. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. The police did not discover any ammunition for the .357 firearm in the compartment or elsewhere in the house.</P> <P> Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. (<EM>Id.</EM>) No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial.</P> <P> The district court instructed the jury on the § 924(c) counts as follows:</P> <P> A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:</P> <P> <EM>First:</EM> That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B70447A4FB222A4882570840079DD1E/$file/0430202.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment and that the district court erred in using a preponderance of the evidence standard when it found that he discharged a firearm. He stated that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/94-2430.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MOUNT (11/25/1998, NO. 94-2430)<BR></A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network.</P> <P> In the early morning hours of November 21. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. The police did not discover any ammunition for the .357 firearm in the compartment or elsewhere in the house.</P> <P> Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. (<EM>Id.</EM>) No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial.</P> <P> The district court instructed the jury on the § 924(c) counts as follows:</P> <P> A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:</P> <P> <EM>First:</EM> That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942430.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial. The district court instructed the jury on the § 924(c) counts as follows: A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. It is not necessary for it to establish that the weapon was fired. It is sufficient if the proof establishes that the firearm furthered the commission of the drug trafficking crime or was an integral part of the underlying drug trafficking crime being committed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2357.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/94-5193.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. RICHARDSON<BR></A><BR> Bobby Gene Richardson was convicted on eight counts of various drug trafficking offenses. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his firearm and conspiracy convictions. (3) evidence was erroneously admitted during trial. Stone were to act as middlemen between the purchaser. Stone that he would get back in touch with him when he was ready to do something else. Although the location for the purchase was later changed to Wann Cemetery in Oologah. Richardson had observed one of the surveillance officers while he was driving and had informed Mr. Richardson reaching down but could not see what he was reaching for. Richardson was arrested and a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2902_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Daniel Groves was charged in a two count indictment under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0753n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was tackled and restrained by the officers. While the officers were securing the residence. She was also restrained by the officers. A gun holster were found in the kitchen. While a small bag of marijuana was found in the northwest bedroom of the residence. Probation Officer Mark Escue testified that he assessed a two level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) because the gun was present in Patterson's residence at the time that Patterson's drug trafficking activities occurred. That Sharp made a statement that she had witnessed Patterson in possession of a gun on several occasions when Patterson was conducting drug transactions. He stated that he was 2 stabbed by one intruder while wresting the gun away from the other. Patterson admitted that the .45 caliber pistol seized by the police during the search of his home was the same gun that he had taken from his alleged attacker. He stated that it was now his gun. When he was arrested for engaging in drug trafficking activities. The applicable sentencing guideline for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is found in § 2D1.1(c)(4) and calls for a base offense level of 32. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/983583P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) concluded there was sufficient evidence to convict him of being a felon in possession of guns. Boyd argues he is entitled to reversal of his conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct before and during the trial. I. FACTS After having received information from a confidential informant (CI) that cocaine was being sold in the lobby area of Cole's Motor Lodge in St. The door was opened by a male. Garrett saw a Ruger .357 Magnum handgun on the floor only inches from appellant's feet and a plastic cellophane bag containing a substance which was later determined to be cocaine base. Other weapons were found near where Boyd was standing. Exiting the bathroom. ­2­ Appellant was taken into custody and as they left the motel. Boyd produced a Missouri driver's license in the name of Billy Jackson and was booked under that name. A CTR must be filed when there is a cash transaction of $10. The original CTR is sent to the IRS and a copy with an attached surveillance photograph of the customer is maintained by the Casino Queen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0100p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410717.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we have determined that Williams failed to establish plain error in his sentence enhancement for brandishing or possessing a gun during the robberies or clear error in the denial of a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility. During one The six jewelry robberies in Savannah malls were: (1) Finlay Fine Jewelry in Dillard's at Savannah Mall on January 4. Which might have appeared to be a gun. He maintained that he did not have or display a gun at any of the robberies. Since the fair market value of the merchandise stolen was more than $50. The six count information to which Williams pled guilty was for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 for commercial business robbery. Williams is not specifically charged with possessing a gun during the robberies. The combined adjusted total offense level was 32. The officer also found that Williams was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because his denial of possessing a firearm amounted to a false denial of relevant conduct. Williams's applicable sentencing range was 210 to 262 months of imprisonment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1487.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Thomas was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Told them that he was the one who pointed a gun at her. Thomas ran from the building and was chased by the officers on foot and by squad car. He was caught a few blocks away. While Thomas was being handcuffed. No gun was found. As Thomas was being brought back to the apartment building. Thomas was charged in Illinois state court with possession of cocaine. Was sentenced to three years' incarceration. Thomas was arrested on a federal complaint charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Thomas was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment and now appeals. ANALYSIS Thomas's principal challenge on appeal is that two pieces of evidence. Were erroneously admitted at trial. Thomas moved to have a photograph taken of one of his tattoos ruled inadmissible. The tattoo was of two revolvers crossed. The district court ruled that the photograph was admissible. Finding that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/003850.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Singletary contends that the felon in possession statute is unconstitutional because the conduct it proscribes the intrastate possession of a firearm does not have a substantial effect upon interstate commerce. We will reaffirm our holding in Gateward and affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. The relevant facts are not in dispute. Police Officer Thomas Liciardello was watching a suspected stolen car in the area of Cobbs Creek Parkway and Larchwood Avenue in Philadelphia. He was charged with having </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1893.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was seized from Corey's Maine residence by officers of the Somerset County Sheriff's Department. Was indicted for possessing a firearm which had traveled in interstate commerce. <U>See</U> 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g). Hence necessarily traveled across state lines. <U>Id.</U> As Agent Cooney's testimony is pivotal to the appeal. Cooney stated that the principal Smith and Wesson manufacturing plant is situated in Massachusetts. That other Smith and Wesson plants are located in Ohio and Maine. He stated that he had been able to determine from ATF </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. 4) motion to introduce a BB gun as demonstrative evidence because counsel did not know the BB gun was almost identical to the firearm found in his house until the day before the motion was made. Which was usually an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2433.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. Griffin</SPAN> was on brief. Ruffner</SPAN> was on brief. For appellant Mauricio Berguette Meran.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/971181P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gerald Jarrett were convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Jarrett were also convicted of use of a minor in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 861(a)(1) (1994). Burchett also determined that the phone number belonged to Maria Scales and was assigned to an apartment at 909 East Eighteenth Street in Minneapolis. She informed Burchett that the drugs were being stored at a Red Roof Inn in Plymouth. Were being sold out of the 909 East Eighteenth Street apartment building. A hotel employee told Burchett that the individuals who had stayed in the rooms registered to Cleveland and Hines were currently staying in a room registered to Fernando Davis. Davis was identified as the 5 driver and Paris Wilson and Steve Howard as the passengers. Was never apprehended. Substantial sentences were imposed. Further facts will be recited as is necessary in our analysis of the issues presented by the appellants. I. The appellants contend that Agent Burchett's testimony as to the out of court statements of other witnesses was inadmissible hearsay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016199.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although appellants were tried together. Their claims on appeal are largely distinct. We conclude that no claim advanced by either appellant is meritorious. Jernigan was driving a type of tow truck known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C6202277450F07A7882571800072E93A/$file/0550000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Rios) was convicted by a jury of seven counts relating to a conspiracy with his father. Rios was convicted of (1) one count of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The drug trafficking crime that Rios was convicted of furthering was the conspiracy crime. Rios contends that the evidence produced at trial was not sufficient to convict him of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under § 924(c)(1)(A). Sr. at the Burlington apartment on several occasions and testified that Rios was present on at least three of those occasions. The fact that Rios contested that charge is no longer a valid reason to deny the downward adjustment. We further note that Rios was sentenced before United States v. So the district court's reconsideration of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility will be in the context of the now advisory sentencing guidelines. Rios's residence is a three room suite containing a rear bedroom. Also in the front room was a dresser. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Defendant was indicted in two counts: Count One. The only error we find is the acquittal. The seriousness with which Congress viewed this conduct is emphasized by the fact 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5491a.html">NAVEGAR, INC. V. US<BR></A><BR> Gardiner argued the cause and was on the </P> <P>briefs for appellants.</P> <P> Mark B. With him on the brief </P> <P>were David W. Are licensed by the United States </P> <P>Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of </P> <P>Attainder.</P> <P> Both the appellants and the government filed cross motions </P> <P>for summary judgment on both of the constitutional chal </P> <P>lenges to the Act. Is entitled the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/013.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mishann Chinn were found murdered in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge in Prince George's County. Dustin John Higgs was subsequently convicted by a federal jury of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. All of which are punishable by life imprisonment or death. Higgs was also convicted of three counts of using a firearm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5491a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gardiner argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellants. With him on the brief were David W. Are licensed by the United States Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of Attainder. Is entitled the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2693.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDonald informed the police dispatcher that an occupied white car was parked behind the Oil Exchange on Route 2. That business was closed at that hour of the morning. Who was present at the police station when the call was received. Because the police station and the Oil Exchange are located within the same block on Route 2. Officer Swisher was able to respond to the call immediately. As Officer Swisher was leaving the police station. He also observed two occupants in the car and noticed that the passenger was moving about. The driver of the car was Marlissa Barnes and the only passenger was her fiancé. There was nothing in front of the white car to prevent its exit. Was out of the car and was rapidly approaching Officer Swisher's patrol car. Officer Swisher testified that it was unusual for a driver to approach him in such a manner. He further testified that his suspicions were elevated because her car had been parked behind a closed business establishment and there had been quite a few burglaries in the area during that time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0112n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellants Nakeitha Jackson and Marlos Hines were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. DefendantAppellant Tonya Washington was convicted by a jury of knowingly disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon. The Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence upon which their convictions were based. Are affirmed. The sentences imposed are vacated and remanded to the district court in light of United States v. The decision of the district court denying Washington's motion for acquittal is reversed. Confidential Informant Bratcher purchased 1 An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0269p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted after a trial by jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. That the proof submitted to the jury was not constitutionally sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Local police officers were dispatched to a Memphis address and found a young woman upset to the point that she was having difficulty speaking. The officers later learned that the young woman's name was Tamica Gordon. The young woman the police met was apparently also the same woman who made the 911 call. The officers inferred that she was describing a semiautomatic weapon. A car pulled up to the address where Gordon and officers were conversing. A woman was driving the car. A man was in the passenger seat. She pointed at the car and told the officers that the man in it was the same man who had pointed a gun at her. No weapons were found. Arnold was cooperative and did not attempt to elude the police or run away. The gun was in a clear plastic bag when the police located it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/96-3138a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Is the appropriate standard for this case. We question whether harmless error is in fact the appropriate standard of review here. The gun was found where Perkins threw it. $518 in cash $120 of which was concealed in Perkins' underwear. The total street value of the cocaine base was more than $4. His defense to the s 841 charge was that he did not intend to distribute them. His defense to the s 924(c)(1) charge was that although he carried the weapon. Not in connection with the drugs he was holding. It was a coincidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964308.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue in this appeal is whether the defendants' convictions and sentences. Because the predicate crime of violence or drug trafficking crime charged in the indictment is an essential element of a § 924(c) offense. Met Gerome and discovered that Gerome and Jeron were involved in drug trafficking in Greenville. Detective Robinson told Daniels that he was interested in purchasing large amounts of crack. Detective Robinson were waiting for the drug deal to consummate. The person he later discovered was Jeron told him to page him if he did want to purchase crack. Detective Robinson was then convinced that Jeron was also dealing crack and. Gerome told Detective Robinson that he was confident that he could supply Detective Robinson with the crack and a firearm the next day. Gerome indicated that he did not have the firearm Detective Robinson wanted to purchase because his supplier had not yet paged him. Because Detective Robinson knew he was about to arrest Gerome. Which was later identified as the firearm that Gerome had pointed at Detective Robinson during the September 7. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2C14D239E28A847288256FF00072EE78/$file/0310439.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Ogles was a resident of California. Ogles was indicted on two counts: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-8042.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. SNOW<BR></A><BR> Ronald Lloyd Snow was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and theft of a firearm from a federally licensed firearm dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(u). He was sentenced to sixty six months incarceration. Snow then stated he wanted to look at some knives that were in a cabinet next to the display case containing the guns. Snow was leaning over the cabinet with his hand behind the counter. Asked if there was anything else he wanted to see. At this point she noticed the case was in disarray. Snow had just been examining and two magazine clips were missing. Snow was no longer in the store. It was a jean a denim type material and then it had the brown corduroy cutoffs. The police noted she also stated the suspect was a white male carrying a black satchel. Snow was then taken to the Torrington Police Department. Fingerprint cards were used to determine that Mr. (2) whether the testimony of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent that the gun manufacturer told him the firearm model in question was imported denied the defendant his right of confrontation and was hearsay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200405/03-3011a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3033b.html">U.S. V. MAURICE STEWART<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-3033a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. At the time the brief was filed. Stewart filed a collateral review motion challenging his conviction on the ground that his receipt of firearms was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-3033b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. At the time the brief was filed. Stewart filed a collateral review motion challenging his conviction on the ground that his receipt of firearms was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3033a.html">U.S V. MAURICE STEWART<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/02-5007.htm">02-5007 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 01/08/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-8024.htm">97-8024 -- U.S. V. WILSON -- 12/22/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/417F5368059FBBB6882571CC00704B31/$file/0530134.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tommy Hartz was convicted of conspiracy. (3) that the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to warrant the jury's verdict. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. There were then no customers in the store and only one employee. Was standing near the front of the store. Both 1 The store was divided into two parts: a showroom in the front. The two parts of the store were separated by a wall. HARTZ men were wearing hats and tee shirts. The hats were pulled down to the robbers' eyebrows. The tee shirts were pulled up to cover their mouths. Marciel would later testify that the robbers' clothing was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964890.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: On pages 13 and 15 the references to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/982207P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted of various counts involving a conspiracy to traffic illegal guns from Minnesota to Chicago. Approximately 126 firearms were obtained from licensed dealers. Firearms were also obtained through a home burglary and the robbery of Lloyd's Gun Shop in Minneapolis. Al Muqsit was known by his former name. He will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2216.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have found Mr. A car show was held at Cahoon Park in Roswell. Vallejos was standing one foot behind Mr. Eric Gutierrez was sitting in the passenger seat. He was met by Mr. Gutierrez as he was on his way out of the truck. Vallejos was still in the truck. Sanchez was also arrested and later pleaded guilty to armed robbery in New Mexico state court. Where he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Sanchez was forcibly taking Mr. He thought the two men were friends and that they were all just going to get a beer together. Vallejos pointed out that he was blind in one eye and had impaired vision in the other and that he was not paying attention to what Mr. Sanchez was doing at the time of the carjacking. Arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that he committed either of the crimes charged. Vallejos knew a gun was being used during the carjacking. Arguing that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Mr. The Government must prove four factors beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the offense of carjacking under 2119 was committed by some person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7002.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Burton was convicted of using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. <hr> was introduced at trial. As she was driving her son to the bank. Burton was wearing a black shirt with a backwards number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1016A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on supplemental brief for appellee. The original panel's opinion was withdrawn when the government's petition for an en banc was granted. Our focus is on the appeals of Ram rez Ferrer and Su rez Maya. Although the firearm convictions were also to be reconsidered en banc. After the en banc oral argument was heard but before the en banc opinion was issued. The sole remaining issue is the validity of the firearm convictions for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime pursuant to section 924(c)(1). The boat was interdicted about one mile off the southwest coast of Puerto Rico. After the boat was seized. It was found to be carrying about 16 kilograms of cocaine. Was found covered by a T shirt. Su rez Maya was sentenced to life imprisonment. Troche Matos to a term of 120 months.1 The sentences of Su rez Maya and Ram rez Ferrer were enhanced under 21 U.S.C. 841(b) and 960(b) on account of prior drug crimes. Each appellant was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of 60 months to be served consecutively. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0262n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Raymond Molina was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His sentence was enhanced pursuant to U. Sitting by designation. * No. 05 6552 that the assailant was driving a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/93-9476.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. RANGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> Defendant Arraion Range and two co defendants were charged in two counts with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and attempt to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/97-2025.htm">97-2025 -- U.S. V. SANDOVAL -- 10/02/1997<BR></A><BR> Gerold ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/93-9476.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. RANGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> Defendant Arraion Range and two co defendants were charged in two counts with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and attempt to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1923.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1995 is amended as follows: On page 35. Substitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2800_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barry Soskin ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004012.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Cornelius Studifin was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of interfering with interstate commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 1951(a) (the Hobbs Act) (Count I). Whose face was masked by a dark stocking. Officer Michael Tunstall noticed a black male wearing a burgundy and gold Redskins cap and a black Raiders jacket who was carrying a black bag in his hands and running through the Community Pride parking lot. Including a description 2 of the robber and the fact that the robber was armed with a silver handgun. Who was later identified as Studifin. Studifin argues that his sentence constitutes double jeopardy because § 924(c) and § 924(e) punish the same conduct and because the 1998 amendments to § 924(c) prohibit the imposition of a mandatory consecutive sentence pursuant to § 924(c) where the mandatory minimum sentence from another provision of law is greater than the mandatory minimum consecutive sentence under § 924(c). Where the issue is solely that of multiple punishment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/02-3104a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. The district court determined that although counsel's performance was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-6320.htm">98-6320 -- U.S. V. MCKISSICK -- 02/24/2000<BR></A><BR> Delmar Anton Zeigler were arrested following a shooting at a nightclub in Oklahoma City. Zeigler was convicted of the drug trafficking charges in Counts Three and Four. The Defendants were tried jointly. Zeigler was sentenced to life without parole for each Count with the sentences to run concurrently. McKissick guilty on all three counts with which he was charged. McKissick was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment on Count One and 240 months imprisonment on Count Three. McKissick was also sentenced to five years imprisonment on Count Five. These appeals are addressed simultaneously in this opinion. The suspect vehicle was a 1970s model green Chevrolet Impala and the suspects were reported to be black males. Zeigler was handcuffed and placed in Officer Thomas's patrol car. McKissick later admitted the car was his. <p> While Mr. McKissick was in the emergency room reception area. Who was also at the hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound. Simpkins further testified he was in a van with some other men in the nightclub parking lot when they encountered Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-4741.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MATOS (9/17/1999, NO. 98-4741)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</P> <P> Jose Antonio Rodriguez Matos ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-4741.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MATOS (9/17/1999, NO. 98-4741)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</P> <P> Jose Antonio Rodriguez Matos ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-4196.htm">01-4196 -- U.S. V. COLLINS -- 12/20/2002<BR></A><BR> 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0167p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find it to have been impermissibly amended and thus also reverse his conviction on Count IV. Combs then exited the car and told Eversole that he was going to meet a man who would supply him with the pills. The police found that he was carrying a loaded .22 caliber pistol and many OxyContin and Dialudid pills. The finder of fact could not have convicted unde r either p rong of the statute. The Tenth Circuit held that the indictment contained two distinct offenses for which the jury could have found the defendant guilty. There was sufficient evidence to convict defendant on this charg e. The two prongs of the statute are separated by the disjunctive </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1370.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. That the jury's general verdict of guilty on the firearm charge is ambiguous and must be set aside. As it was returned on a single charge containing three alleged violations. Two of which were not supported by the evidence at trial. Nieves Burgos asserts that the only alleged violation supported by evidence at trial was itself not supported by sufficient evidence. We conclude that the jury verdict is not ambiguous and is adequately supported by the evidence. BACKGROUND The factual background of this appeal is set forth in United States v. Which for the most part are not disputed. As is appropriate. The rooms often were paid for together. Which was bulging from something concealed underneath. Was met by Nieves Burgos and Pedro Luis Ram rez Rivera (Ram rez Rivera). Nieves Burgos was on one of the room's two beds. The gun was found with a bundle of cash in a zippered bag on a sofa on which Gotay Col n was seated. The bag was located less than two feet from Nieves Burgos. Rooms 310 and 327 were also searched. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/003706P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jones was found guilty by a jury of the three counts in the indictment: two counts of felony possession of a firearm and one count of making false statements to acquire a firearm. He was sentenced to 327 months imprisonment on each of the felon in possession counts and 60 months on the false statement count. Jones was arrested at an Amoco Quick Store in Columbia by Columbia Police Officer Ben White.3 Jones was not immediately read his Miranda rights. Was transported to the police station in a squad car. Arrest was the result of drug purchases that Officer Candy Cornman made from Jones in her undercover capacity. 3 2 testified that at the police station Jones was processed. Jones admitted that the Columbia Police had seized his gun during an earlier incident and that he knew that he was not supposed to have a gun. Arguing that he had not been read his Miranda rights until after his conversation with Officer White was almost over. The district court denied the motion to suppress and Officer White was permitted to testify at trial about the arrest and subsequent statements of Jones. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/052249P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dobbs's sentence was the minimum Guidelines sentence under the applicable range of 360 months to life with a mandatory consecutive eighty four month sentence for the firearms charges. A central piece of evidence in this case was a May 22. Although Dobbs is Wilson's half brother and admits that he was present in the The date displayed on the videotape of the May 22. 2003 robbery was not May 22. There is no challenge to the fact that the videotape accurately depicts the May 22 robbery. 2 1 store (claiming that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0379p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was charged in a three count indictment with illegal possession of the receiver of a Sten MKII machine gun and various other parts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-3020a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-6225.htm">03-6225 -- U.S. V. WILSON -- 04/27/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Randy Todd Wilson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1NDYtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2546-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Lewter's case is remanded for sentencing proceedings consistent with United States v. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Booker. Circuit Judge: Defendant appellant Coleridge Lewter was convicted. Based on his possession of things that were seized from his apartment in the exercise of a lawful search: (i) possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Lewter argues chiefly that: (i) there was insufficient evidence to support his gun convictions. (ii) his right to a fair trial was violated by the denial of his request to review his pretrial services report. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The case is remanded for sentencing proceedings consistent with United States v. I Lewter contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and for knowingly possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0092p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was within the recommended Sentencing Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. Howse Page 2 enhancement was improper because the government did not prove that the gun used in the enhancement offense was the same gun. A resident of Nashville who is now 46 years old. Was convicted in August of 1990 of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by the state court. Two state warrants were sworn out against Howse by his thengirlfriend. Edmondson told authorities that the weapon was a .45 caliber handgun. Howse was arrested the next day on the outstanding warrants. The arresting officers discovered that Howse was carrying a loaded .380 caliber Lorcin semiautomatic pistol on his person. A criminal background check revealed that Howse was a convicted felon. Howse was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. We will continue to refer to § 2K2.1(b)(5) for the sake of consistency.). Although she told the investigating officers that the weapon used in the assault was a .45 caliber handgun. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/02-3015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1779.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for the United States. Richard Alston was found guilty by a jury of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Most are readily answered. The background facts are not in dispute. Two Boston police officers received a tip from a confidential informant that a man near 5 Fayston Street in Dorchester was carrying a gun. The informant advised that the man was black. Was dressed in jeans. Realizing that there was a gun in the pocket. The officer removed it and arrested Alston. 2 2 The gun seized from Alston was later identified as a Colt Model 1908 .25 caliber. The weapon was rusted and pitted. Its slide was stuck. The gun's grip was wrapped in electrical tape. It is the government's later alteration of this weapon that gives rise to the main issue in this case. Alston was first charged under Massachusetts law with possessing a firearm without a license and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number. The state charges were dismissed because the Boston Police Department's ballistics unit had determined that the gun was inoperable and therefore did not meet the Massachusetts definition of a firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EA6680A21F35395A8825726D00789102/$file/0550270.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Here no one disputes that there was a valid search warrant issued by a state court judge on a showing of probable cause. The challenge is focused on whether there is a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be presented with a copy of the search warrant at the time of the search. Albert Lamont Hector was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Count One). The district court also granted Hector's motion for a judgment of acquittal on Count Two due to insufficient evidence that the gun was used </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5027.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Matt Lotspeich and Tulsa Police Detective Paul Hutter were investigating an armed robbery. Believing Butler might have some information about suspects. When his wife and daughter were home. There was a knock at the back door of the apartment. Two men were outside. Gomez explained he was having a problem with a person named Alvin. His fear was well founded because Gomez pointed the gun at Butler while explaining the Alvin problem. Although Butler knew it was illegal for him to possess the gun. He did not take it to the authorities because Gomez and Jermaine would be coming back and he would be in danger if they discovered it was missing. Knowing Gomez and others believed cell phones operated by the local mobile phone company were constantly monitored. Butler tried to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1408.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton pro se was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. * Chief Judge Stephen Breyer heard oral argument in this matter but did not participate in the drafting or the issuance of the panel's opinion. Norton and Kevin Johnson were drinking in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1584p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse defendants' convictions 2 for unlawful firearm possession under Virgin Islands law. We will affirm all other issues raised in this appeal. Defendants' car was stopped for a traffic violation. Were also ordered to leave the car after an officer observed them conversing and looking around inside the car. They were met by a friend whose car they borrowed. The Tec 9 pistol is considered a machine gun under Virgin Islands law because. This weapon is not classified as a machine gun but as a semiautomatic assault weapon. The .38 caliber revolver was positioned between Hall and the juvenile. The Tec 9 machine gun was located on the front passenger side floorboard. The .45 caliber pistol was located on the rear driver's side floorboard where the juvenile had been sitting. A firearms expert testified that each of the three firearms was loaded with ammunition and ready to fire. 3 concealed the three weapons in the car without telling McKie and Henry about his purchase. McKie was driving. Defendants were stopped by the police around 12:30 a.m. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/975009.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Derrick Redd was charged on a seven count indictment of robbing three banks and attempting to rob a fourth. The eyewitness testimony at trial was that Redd's gun was a silver handgun. Redd argues that: (1) the indictment was constructively amended at trial. (2) the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his convictions. Two of which are the subject of appeal here. Redd was renting two rooms in a townhouse owned by James Paul. Redd was indicted on seven counts associated with the three robberies and the attempted robbery. In addition to eyewitness testimony that Redd was the man who robbed each bank. There were no usable photos from the November 8 robbery. Redd argued that it was Paul. Redd also argued that there was no evidence of a firearm for this robbery. Redd was found guilty on all charges. The indictment was constructively amended at trial. Redd also 3 argues that there was insufficient evidence that he used a firearm during the robberies. Or that the firearm was a black revolver. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/99-8185.man.html">UNITED STATES V. HUNT (9/3/1999, NO. 99-8185)<BR></A><BR> Hunt contends that the Government failed to offer sufficient evidence that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-4119.htm">03-4119 -- U.S. V. PARKER -- 03/24/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/99-8185.man.html">UNITED STATES V. HUNT (9/3/1999, NO. 99-8185)<BR></A><BR> Hunt contends that the Government failed to offer sufficient evidence that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/001812.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Orlando Orta was dead and Concepcion Garcia Orta. As will be discussed in more detail later in the opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-5143.htm">99-5143 -- U.S. V. PEARSON -- 04/28/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Kevin Lamont Pearson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3795_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of possessing ammunition. Felons are prohibited from having </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/019.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) that the district court erred in denying Jackson's motion for a mistrial based upon the alleged prosecutorial misconduct of calling a witness whose testimony was tainted and unreliable. JACKSON 3 court erred in allowing the jury to consider multiple intent factors when only one was necessary for imposition of the death penalty. (11) that the statutory aggravating circumstance found by the jury of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024295.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. There is. Because Masserini did not have the H & K in stock. In spite of Masserini's warning that the Llama was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0099n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Larry Skinner was carrying a firearm in a hip holster and transporting a large quantity of cocaine in a car when he was stopped for a traffic violation. I have a loaded weapon. Burns and the backup officers he summoned testified that Skinner was cooperative throughout the arrest. He was never asked whether he needed the gun for his drug trafficking activities. He was found guilty on both counts. Skinner was carrying on his person a loaded firearm. Which he admitted was his. Arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for any rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Skinner carried the gun in relation to the drug trafficking crime. Both motions were denied. We will find that the jury heard sufficient evidence if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-3039.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> Hicks was driving a 1991 Ford Aerostar east on U.S. Hicks was going 66 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. While Trooper Kennedy was pulling the van over. Was unable to produce either. Hicks in the back seat of the patrol car and again asked him where his registration and insurance documents were. Hicks appeared nervous while he was in the patrol car. Hicks where he was going. Hicks said he was traveling from Oxnard. Hicks was in the patrol car. The license plates were current. The VIN was also on the dashboard. It was not visible through the windshield because there was a magazine covering it. Who was still in the passenger seat. Hicks were going. Miller told Trooper Kennedy he was traveling from Ventura. Which is near Oxnard. While he was still leaning into the van and talking to Mr. Trooper Kennedy did not have to move anything in order to see the pipe. Hicks if it was his pipe. Hicks admitted it was. It is unclear whether he did so before or after he arrested Mr. Trooper Kennedy learned from the dispatcher that the van was stolen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2567_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After he was caught and charged with various firearms offenses. The ATF agent made out a report noting that Mahalick said that the gun was for the couple's mutual protection. Maryland and after he was found guilty by a jury. Foster was involved in a shootout after he attempted to collect a debt. He was found holding the gun after having been shot four times. Mahalick was arrested. Conway testified that Mahalick explained that the gun was for mutual protection. The conversation was recorded. Mahalick was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-3252.htm">98-3252 -- U.S. V. RUCKER -- 06/09/1999<BR></A><BR> That there was insufficient evidence to establish that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-3262.htm">00-3262 -- U.S. V. AVERY -- 07/09/2002<BR></A><BR> He asserts that all of his convictions should be overturned because they were not supported by sufficient evidence. Was conducting surveillance on a residence suspected of housing drug trafficking activity. Avery was driving with a suspended license. Officer Shade immediately believed the substance was powder cocaine and placed Mr. Avery was never charged in connection with these narcotics. <p> After arresting Mr. Officer Shade asked him if there were any other drugs in the car. A confidential informant told agents </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2544.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sandy</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. 922(g)(9) had not yet been enacted when he was convicted of the predicate domestic violence offense. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/98-5821.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RUIZ (6/8/2001, NO. 98-5821)<BR></A><BR> The jury was erroneously instructed on the mens rea required for conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). Insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). Defendant was carrying a KG99 firearm. The Tomes' daughter was in her bedroom at the time and called 911 when she heard the disturbance. Tome was thrown against the bed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/98-5821.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RUIZ (6/8/2001, NO. 98-5821)<BR></A><BR> The jury was erroneously instructed on the mens rea required for conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). Insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). Defendant was carrying a KG99 firearm. The Tomes' daughter was in her bedroom at the time and called 911 when she heard the disturbance. Tome was thrown against the bed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/99-3083a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: William Austin Green was con victed in 1991 for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1656.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.</SPAN> and the <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07081339CA0B3F9A8825715A007BCC2E/$file/0510153.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The facts of this case are relatively simple. Such weapons have three serial numbers: one engraved on the slide. This particular pistol was missing the serial number on the frame entirely and the serial numbers on the slide and barrel had been ground off. The procedural posture is somewhat unusual. Romero Martinez was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on June 16. Shortly after the indictment was handed down. The judge instructed the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1232.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant James Herron was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a). He was on parole at the time and subject to supervision by the parole division of the Colorado Department of Corrections. She was cleared as a buyer when the clerk called the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for a background check. The transaction was observed by Greg Thares. Herron while he was at work and took him to his apartment. The Bersa .380 was not there. The second firearm was eventually traced to its buyer. Herron was indicted on two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Was unable to identify Mr. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(c) (prior statement of trial witness identifying a person is not hearsay). Herron's theory of defense was that his possession was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052027np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us is Raymond Zwibel's appeal from his jury conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Zwibel takes the position that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. (2) the jury was not properly instructed on the issue of constructive possession of a firearm. (3) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Zwibel was serving the terms of a probation arising out of prior state court felony convictions. Probation officers informed Zwibel that they were en route to Conway's home to conduct an inspection. Whereupon the officers asked Zwibel whether there were any firearms or other weapons in the bedroom. Zwibel responded that his brother in law might have left firearms in the bedroom. Zwibel then walked to a dresser at the opposite side of the room and told the probation officers that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1882.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Rogers was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) as a felon in possession of a firearm. Was believed to be hiding. Rogers announced that the officers were lucky they found him before he got to his gun. Or he would have blown his brains out. The gun was fully loaded. Rogers was taken to the police station. Where he was given Miranda warnings. He stated that the gun seized at the apartment was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/96-3105a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A.J. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Joseph was con victed in 1988 for several criminal offenses including violation of 18 U.S.C. s 924(c)(1). The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a s 924(c)(1) conviction and that the jury instruction defining </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/973944P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury convicted brothers Everett and Randall Hall and Roy Hall (who is not related to Everett and Randall Hall) of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Hall asserts that he did not know that the alleged silencer was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/022898P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pelayo Jose Cuervo were convicted of numerous narcotics and firearms offenses. The firearms convictions that were unrelated to the conspiracy. Five kilograms or more of cocaine.3 The defendants were also charged with using firearms in furtherance of the conspiracy. The defendants were convicted of many of the charged counts.7 Norman was convicted of maintaining a continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. He was also convicted of nine substantive counts of distributing methamphetamine. Cuervo was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. Schoenauer was convicted of conspiracy to distribute between fifty and five hundred grams of methamphetamine and between one hundred grams and one thousand kilograms of marijuana. Schoenauer was then tried separately and found guilty of three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. 3 4 5 6 7 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041223P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who had no identification and said his driver's license was suspended. Who was the front seat passenger and only other occupant. That Gipson was driving on a suspended license. The passenger may have provided false information. A beer bottle was on the floorboard between the driver and passenger. Officer Barnes removed the beer bottle from the Mercury and informed Walker there was a problem. Was dragged to the next intersection while yelling at Walker to stop the vehicle. Received an emergency radio broadcast that a DMPD officer was down. That the fleeing Mercury was in close proximity to her patrol vehicle. The gun was fully loaded. An empty beer bottle and a portable CD player were found on the right front floorboard. Shortly after Walker was arrested. Because he believed there was an arrest warrant out on him. Because he had given false information and because he thought he was going to be arrested based on his belief there was an outstanding arrest warrant on him. Walker asserted he stopped at the intersection and asked the police officer who was hanging onto the Mercury to please let go. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-3083a.html">U.S. V. WILLIAM AUSTIN GREEN<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4015.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of the search warrant was to search for drugs (specifically. Anderson testified that the footsteps did not sound as if they were getting closer to the door and he could not discern whether they were moving from left to right or right to left. Anderson later testified that he did not believe three to five seconds was sufficient time for the footsteps to reach the entry door. The footsteps Anderson heard appear to have been made by 13 year old Tryphenia Sykes. Tryphenia is the daughter No. 02 4015 1 3 of Gillaum's wife. Tryphenia testified that she was eating breakfast and watching television when she heard a knock on the door and someone say something. Gillaum was handcuffed. Members of the task force learned that Gillaum was diabetic. Gillaum was asked if he was experiencing any medical problems and was told if he was having problems to let someone know. Gillaum was also asked if he needed any food. Gillaum indicated that he was all right and did not need any food. Greiber asked Gillaum if he was familiar with the warnings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/013365P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joseph Michael Scolaro was convicted of possession of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) and was sentenced to seventy eight months in prison. Once the guns were returned to the cabinet. Hennlich noticed that a .380 caliber handgun was missing. The Guidelines provide that the enhancement is applicable where the weapon is used or possessed in connection with another felony offense. The § 2K2.1(b)(5) adjustment is warranted in this case if Scolaro used or possessed any firearm in connection with another felony offense. I find there is another felony in this case and that's the assault . . . . [Scolaro's conduct] would [constitute] . . . an aggravated assault which was done with the intent to inflict serious bodily injury . . . . I believe that there is a separate felony here . . . aside from the actual theft of the guns themselves. Scolaro's possession of stolen firearms was made possible by the assault. We therefore hold that the felonies were sufficiently connected to mandate the application of (b)(5). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/191D248DECBD809F88256DB7005BABE5/$file/0210395.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Facts and Procedural History At least nine men were involved in a late night street fight in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco. Beasley was one of the men involved in the fight. He grabbed a handgun that one of his companions was waving around. Just as Beasley was walking away. Beasley was charged and later convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Beasley testified that he grabbed the gun during the fight because he was afraid that his companion. Beasley testified that he did not display the gun when he first saw the police because he was scared and he was afraid the police might shoot him if they saw the gun. As follows: The defendant claims that he was justified in committing the charged crime. This defense is known as justification. The defendant is justified in committing the charged crime if: First. The defendant or another person was under unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0411n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dotson argues that (1) the car search was improper. Therefore the evidence found in the car should have been suppressed. Dotson evidence at trial was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. The once locked door leading from the garage to the main part of the home was open. A box containing 200 of Marlow's blank personal checks was missing. Marlow's SKS Yogoslav assault rifle was missing from the spare bedroom. On the couch in the upstairs living room was an empty box of United Metallic Cartridge (UMC) .38 special ammunition. Marlow's DVD player and approximately 30 DVD movies were also missing. The Rossi .38special pistol was missing from the bedroom. The kitchen door was kicked in. Marlow's air pistol and four family bibles were also missing. The parties stipulated at trial that Dotson's fingerprints were on the ammunition box left on Marlow's couch. Joshua Gurgel was working as the Security Manager at the Target store located in the Turkey Creek shopping plaza in Knoxville. Gurgel was working with a trainee and teaching her how to catch shoplifters. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014487.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Clarence Lomax was indicted and found guilty of. Lomax contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The evidence was clearly sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Lomax guilty. It was later found to contain nineteen individually wrapped packages of cocaine base (crack). Lomax was subsequently charged in a nine count federal indictment with drug and weapons offenses stemming from this December 2 incident and from unrelated events on May 7. The court found that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3050a.html">U.S. V. DWAYNE CASSELL<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB498C7EBA119C7C8825726500805543/$file/0530528.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The enhancement was warranted. I have a gun. Who was standing between five and ten feet from the teller. Pike was not followed while riding his bicycle. While Pike was detained in the police car. He made the following unsolicited statement: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/993719P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hutzell fired a gun and was subsequently charged with violating § 922(g)(9). Hutzell maintains that his conviction was improper. Because he personally was unaware of § 922(g)(9) at the time of the argument with his girlfriend and. Because no one could be presumed to have had notice that the conduct described in the statute was in fact unlawful. Not that he knew that it was illegal for him to possess a gun. That neither he nor anyone else could be presumed to have had notice that the conduct described in the statute was in fact unlawful. Hutzell contends that there is nothing intuitively unlawful about the conduct that § 922(g)(9) proscribes. That his position is in direct conflict with the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/01-1557.htm">01-1557 -- U.S. V. RADCLIFF -- 06/16/2003<BR></A><BR> Was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and of carrying a firearm during and in relation to that conspiracy. He was sentenced to 288 months of imprisonment. <p> Defendant now challenges three aspects of the proceedings before the district court. He contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his firearm conviction. Defendant contends that wiretap evidence used against him at trial should have been suppressed because of a defect in the order authorizing the wiretap. The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Defendant carried a firearm during and in relation to the methamphetamine conspiracy. The district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the wiretap evidence because the omission in the wiretap order was merely a technical defect. <p> We do not have jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of a downward departure at sentencing. Defendant was indicted along with eighteen others for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032496p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. He was carrying a backpack and a duffle bag. Had what he later claimed was a toy gun stuffed in the waistband of his trousers. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1455p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Damon Beverly was convicted following a jury trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of both counts of a two count indictment charging him with robbery of a postal letter carrier of mail matter and property. Beverly was sentenced to incarceration of 110 months on Count One. There was ample testimony. His appeal is limited to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of the crime charged in Count Two. Who was making mail deliveries in the Philadelphia area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-3050a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. On the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: Appellant Dwayne Cassell was charged in a five count indictment with. 9 mm semi automatic fire arm that fell from underneath the rear bumper of Cassell's car while it was being towed. Cassell was convicted of both firearms charges.1 Cassell appeals on grounds that the evidence of his two prior gun possessions violated Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evi dence. Hart is Dwayne Cassell's uncle. Who was present during part of the search. Was carrying $1429 in cash on his person. From other parts of the house the police 1 Cassell was also convicted of two other charges that are not relevant to this appeal. recovered additional marijuana. Cassell's car was impounded and towed from Sursum Corda. The government contended that the evi dence was probative of Cassell's knowing and intentional possession of the firearms recovered from his bedroom. That his possession of those firearms was not mistaken. The government also contended that the evidence was probative of his criminal intent and state of mind. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3004b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Mark H. </P> <P>Lynch.</P> <P> Kenneth W. With him on the brief were Wilma A. </P> <P>Lewis. Mason testified that he found a gun in a paper bag near </P> <P>a school while he was working as a delivery truck driver. Before Mason acted on his own to relinquish possession. </P> <P>Mason was then arrested and subsequently indicted for a </P> <P>violation of s 922(g)(1). Mason asked the District </P> <P>Court to instruct the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/00-3004a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Mark H. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Mason testified that he found a gun in a paper bag near a school while he was working as a delivery truck driver. Mason was then arrested and subsequently indicted for a violation of s 922(g)(1). Mason asked the District Court to instruct the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1294.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Young was later charged under a Super 2 No. 02 1294 seding Indictment. Finally 4) whether the district court abused its discretion in its response to a question from the jury while it was deliberating. When Young was fifteen years old and Patrick was seventeen years old. The relationship was marred by domestic violence. Though it appears the relationship was an off and on arrangement. The two were at least in touch in January of 2001. Where Patrick's car was parked. Where the couple's three children were present. Young told the children to get out of the room and told Patrick that she was coming with him. Though Patrick testified at trial that she was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-3004b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Mark H. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Mason testified that he found a gun in a paper bag near a school while he was working as a delivery truck driver. Mason was then arrested and subsequently indicted for a violation of s 922(g)(1). Mason asked the District Court to instruct the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/94-4238.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. FARNSWORTH<BR></A><BR> Charles Verdel Farnsworth was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (2) the possession of a firearm was in connection with another felony. (3) Farnsworth was guilty of obstruction of justice. Farnsworth appeals his conviction on the grounds that 922(g) is unconstitutional. Officer James Washington responded to a call that a fight involving a gun was in progress at an apartment building in Salt Lake City. Officer Washington was told by the complainant. Who was later identified as Marlene Porter. The truck was spotted at a grocery store three blocks away. Where Porter and Farnsworth (2) Officer Washington's testimony was that Elliot quoted Farnsworth as saying. The defense's objection was sustained. The statement was included in Farnsworth's presentence report. were taken into custody. Farnsworth was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).(4) At trial. That the gun found in his possession was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-3064a.html">USA V. FENNELL SEAN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062802P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pierre Bell was charged with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Alleging his statements were involuntary. Bell was sentenced to 144 months of imprisonment for the drug offense and 120 months of imprisonment for the felon in possession count. Bell asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts of guilty. Bell was present. As were the residence's occupants: Reecie Humphrey and her children. Alleging it was involuntary. They saw Bell slide to the floor and reach towards the bed as though he was trying to retrieve something. The revolver was discovered in the area where Bell had reached. Bell and Humphrey were naked when the officers entered the bedroom. They were allowed to don clothing. Humphrey said the drugs and the gun found during the search were Bell's. He also admitted the gun was his. Bell wrote </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984672.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jones is corrected to read Jones v. Neder is corrected to read Neder v. Resulted in a base offense level two points higher than the base offense level for three other counts on which he was convicted and that were grouped together with Count Eight. Davis was convicted by a jury on June 4. The potential import of Davis's appeal on his Count Eight sentence is an imprisonment period of approximately twenty months. Davis asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense charged in Count Nine. Davis asserts that his sentence on Count Eight was improperly enhanced based on a finding that he engaged in witness tampering. This transaction was arranged for Davis by intermediaries. Davis believed that one or both of the drug deal's intermediaries had double crossed him and were involved in the theft of his money. McCoy was not at home. No one was physically injured by the gunshots. Were found at the scene of the shooting. An FBI expert testified that markings on the .380 cartridge cases found at the crime scene were consistent with markings from a Grendel model P 10. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-60589-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the evidence was insufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that. I. Shortly after FACTS & PROCEEDINGS Johnson was driving his car in midnight. Mississippi accompanied by co defendant William Harper who was occupying the front passenger seat. acquaintance. Who asked They were hailed by an for a ride to get something to eat.1 Johnson acceded to Hampton's request on the Hampton agreed. So Johnson got out condition that Hampton drive. of his car and walked around to the passenger side while Hampton was getting into the driver's seat. Harper and Johnson were standing next to each Hampton other by the front passenger door. Which was open. recognized the pistol distinctive because of the black tape and duct tape that were wrapped around the handle to hold the magazine in place as one he had seen on two prior occasions: once a few weeks earlier in the possession of Harper. The government advised this court that Hampton was eventually released because he appeared to be the least culpable of the three. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/96-1102.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. HOLLAND<BR></A><BR> Kenneth Wayne Holland was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1).(1) His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Asserting that his section 924(c)(1) conviction is invalid under Bailey v. Which was decided after we affirmed of his conviction. Holland's convictions are set out in detail in our opinion on direct appeal. Holland and co defendant Sevelt Kelly was pulled over on a routine traffic stop. Who was driving. Holland was also convicted of two separate counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). These convictions are not challenged here and are not relevant to our consideration of the issues raised by Mr. Three ounces of cocaine in a cosmetic bag were found by the side of the road where the traffic stop occurred. Holland was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). He now contends that his section 924(c)(1) conviction is invalid under the Supreme Court's construction of that statute in Bailey. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Travon Gardner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on four counts: (1) conspiracy to possess. Which was to run concurrently with his 240 month sentences on the first two convictions. Gardner's total sentence was 300 months of imprisonment. Which was denied by the district court. Because Gardner's sentence of 300 months will remain the same despite the reversal of one of his convictions. I. BACKGROUND Ricky Collins was arrested for drug violations in the fall of 2003 by Mike Thompson. McMillion responded that he would have to get in touch with his people to see what they wanted and asked Collins for the price for five kilograms. Collins's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug17/03-60589-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the evidence was insufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that. I. Shortly after FACTS & PROCEEDINGS Johnson was driving his car in midnight. Mississippi accompanied by co defendant William Harper who was occupying the front passenger seat. acquaintance. Who asked They were hailed by an for a ride to get something to eat.1 Johnson acceded to Hampton's request on the Hampton agreed. So Johnson got out condition that Hampton drive. of his car and walked around to the passenger side while Hampton was getting into the driver's seat. Harper and Johnson were standing next to each Hampton other by the front passenger door. Which was open. recognized the pistol distinctive because of the black tape and duct tape that were wrapped around the handle to hold the magazine in place as one he had seen on two prior occasions: once a few weeks earlier in the possession of Harper. The government advised this court that Hampton was eventually released because he appeared to be the least culpable of the three. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CD46E54F0E66A1188256D6C0059EB7C/$file/0110538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The transfer proceeding was proper. We will also address two of the other claims Miguel and Jose raise because these claims may arise on retrial. Nor involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense to felony murder. Miguel and Jose were carousing with several friends. The Latchum family was vacationing at the WARC. Miguel was the last one to speak to the police. He said that the rifle went off when he was trying to take it away from Calarruda to prevent Calarruda from shooting at Latchum. He said that he did not pull the trigger and that it might have been Calarruda's finger on the trigger when the rifle fired. He said that his finger was on the trigger. He also said that he fired the gun accidentally when he was trying to fire it into the air. B. The Transfer Proceeding Miguel was seventeen years old at the time of the shooting. The shooting was accidental and the youth's intoxication mitigated the offense. The factors are: (1) Miguel's age and social background. Stating that Miguel accidentally fired the gun while he was trying to aim it into the air. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4015A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for rehearing was granted. Was withdrawn. The present amended opinion is substituted. 2 No. 02 4015 ered the prohibited firearm. The purpose of the search warrant was to search for drugs (specifically. Anderson testified that the footsteps did not sound as if they were getting closer to the door and he could not discern whether they were moving from left to right or right to left. Anderson later testified that he did not believe three to five seconds was sufficient time for the footsteps to reach the entry door. The footsteps Anderson heard appear to have been made by 13 year old Tryphenia Sykes. Tryphenia is the daughter 1 of Gillaum's wife. Tryphenia testified that she was eating breakfast and watching television when she heard a knock on the door and someone say something. Gillaum was handcuffed. Members of the task force learned that Gillaum was diabetic. Gillaum was asked if he was experiencing any medical problems and was told if he was having problems to let someone know. Gillaum was also asked if he needed any food. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-8425.man.html">UNITED STATES V. KENT (5/4/1999, NO. 97-8425)<BR></A><BR> </EM> that the trial evidence regarding Count Three was not sufficient to sustain his conviction for possession of an unregistered short barreled rifle and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial regarding Count Three.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-8425.man.html">UNITED STATES V. KENT (5/4/1999, NO. 97-8425)<BR></A><BR> </EM> that the trial evidence regarding Count Three was not sufficient to sustain his conviction for possession of an unregistered short barreled rifle and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial regarding Count Three.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052283P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052968p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the District Court The statutes of conviction are 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). Will affirm on all three issues. I. Price was arrested along with two other men while sitting in a parked car in a parking lot in Philadelphia. Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in the car. When the car was subsequently searched. Drugs and a gun were found in the trunk. There were several officers in the vicinity of the parking lot that night. Relevant to this case were Bonett. Who was hiding in and around other cars in the lot. Who were waiting nearby in an unmarked car. Chiarolanza and Lacorte were part of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence that the defendant filed before entering a conditional guilty plea under Fed. It was later discovered that the 911 call was placed by 12 year old Diane McKnight. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The girl was later identified as Diane McKnight. McKnight told the officer that her mother and her mother's boyfriend were inside the apartment fighting. After announcing that he was a police officer. Again announced that he was a police officer. The officer asked Bennett where the other person was. Bennett told him that no one else was upstairs. Her voice was shaky and she appeared upset. He was carrying a black school bag. Officer Azzarano handcuffed Myers' hands behind his back as he was lying face down on the floor and proceeded to pat him down. Myers responded that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052968np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will affirm on all three issues. I. Price was arrested along with two other men while sitting in a parked car in a parking lot in Philadelphia. Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in the car. The statutes of conviction are 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). The District Court resentenced Price nunc pro tunc to allow him to convert his petition to a direct appeal. 2 1 when the car was subsequently searched. Drugs and a gun were found in the trunk. There were several officers in the vicinity of the parking lot that night. Relevant to this case were Bonett. Who was hiding in and around other cars in the lot. Who were waiting nearby in an unmarked car. Chiarolanza and Lacorte were part of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brountas & Kominsky was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. *Of the District of Puerto Rico. In violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1).1 His sole argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He had never met or dealt with the buyer for whom Kinney was allegedly making the purchase. He told defendant that the buyer was rather upset as he had driven 1. Defendant was also charged with distribution of marijuana. He pled guilty to these two counts and was tried only for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Defendant was apparently reluctant to deliver the marijuana directly to Kinney's house. Kinney was standing outside of the car on the driver's side. After defendant was arrested. The gun was in an unsnapped holster with the barrel end down. While the gun was not loaded. Keegan testified that the cartridge could be used in the handgun that was found and that it appeared to be a live cartridge. He further testified that both the gun and the cartridge were within easy reach of defendant and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0077n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson was convicted of several drug charges. Petitioner appeals on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his felony firearm conviction. That he was entitled to a directed verdict on that charge. BACKGROUND The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the relevant trial testimony as follows: There was evidence that on December 19. Got in and took a grocery bag that was sitting on the passenger side floor. The home was searched at midnight. The guns the police seized from Petitioner's home were found in various places throughout the house. Two were found in the master bedroom: One was under the mattress of the bed and one was in the closet. Both of those guns were loaded. Several more were found in a locked closet in the second story of the house. While one gun was registered to Petitioner and was in his name. Petitioner was convicted by a state court jury of 1) possession with intent to deliver marijuana. Because Petitioner was a fourth habitual offender. He was sentenced to a two year prison sentence for the felony firearm conviction to be followed by concurrent terms of forty to sixty years for the felon in possession conviction and ten to fifteen years for the drug convictions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-3278.htm">96-3278 -- U.S. V. GOTTLIEB -- 04/03/1998<BR></A><BR> The statute requires the district court to sentence to life in prison any person who is convicted in federal court of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-6231.htm">00-6231 -- U.S. V. ARTHUR -- 01/25/2002<BR></A><BR> His sentences are to run concurrently. <p> In this appeal. Asserting he was deprived his constitutional right to self representation during the sentencing phase of his trial. He argues (1) Congress did not have power to enact 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/982819P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Latorre was sentenced to thirty months on the conspiracy charge and a consecutive sixty months on the firearms charge. Latorre filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to set aside the sixty month sentence on the ground that there is no factual basis to support the § 924(c)(1) charge under Bailey. The District Court denied Latorre's motion on the ground that his substantive claims were procedurally defaulted. He is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of actual innocence of the § 924(c)(1) charge. 2 II. That no evidentiary hearing is necessary because the record proves Latorre is guilty.1 Both arguments fail. We are puzzled as to why the government would bargain for and obtain such a waiver as part of a plea agreement and then not seek to enforce the waiver. We are less than ecstatic that this appeal has come to us on the merits of Latorre's § 2255 motion without our being afforded an opportunity to rule on the important threshold question of whether this § 2255 motion is barred by Latorre's waiver. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-3168a.html">USA V. CLARK ANDRE P.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <i>Wilma A. <p> Lewis</i>. Defendant An <p> dre Clark was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm <p> by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 90 months in prison on each count. He challenges his convictions on the <p> following grounds: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to <p> warrant conviction on any count. We reject all of these challenges. <p> Clark also contends that he should only have been convicted <p> once rather than twice for unlawfully possessing both a <p> firearm and the ammunition with which it was loaded. We agree that <p> defendant is correct. Police officers <p> Otis McGinnis and Daymeion Harris stopped an automobile <p> that was traveling over 40 miles per hour in a 25 miles per <p> hour zone. Andre Clark was the driver and sole occupant of <p> the car. The <p> document was a cellular phone contract in the name of Paul <p> Green. After a radio check disclosed that defendant <p> did not have a valid license. He was placed under arrest for <p> driving without a permit.<p> <p> Officer McGinnis then began to search the passenger com <p> partment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-2150.htm">99-2150 -- U.S. V. REED -- 02/02/2001<BR></A><BR> Disagreed he was accountable for 100 grams or more of methamphetamine as charged in Count I. After the cook was completed and they had finished the product. This made a total of six pounds of crank after each cook. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70AE4A8E8BF96BBC88256EEB00780434/$file/0216829.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended and the dissent shall be withdrawn. Judge O'Scannlain has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges Wallace and Hall have recommended denial. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Shaw was convicted in a California state court on multiple counts of assault. Shaw was sentenced to 136 months in prison. Was convicted on the same counts. Shaw asserts that his due process rights were violated at the two trials by the state prosecutor's advancement of factually inconsistent arguments. His habeas petition was denied by the district court on August 5. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. There was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could convict Shaw without implicating the factual tension. Shaw was convicted of multiple counts of assault. Was convicted on multiple counts of assault. Were waiting to be served. Was unable to identify conclusively the person responsible for either transgression. Sonia Marin testified that she was waiting tables the night of the robbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-3149a.html">USA V. JOHNSON MICHAEL J.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA649965A29A8D8988257265005DDE9D/$file/0416976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Secretary delegated this authority to what was then called the Bureau of Alcohol. Because any distinction between the two Bureaus is irrelevant to the disposition of this case. We will use the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/97-3168a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Wilma A. Defendant An dre Clark was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 90 months in prison on each count. He challenges his convictions on the following grounds: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to warrant conviction on any count. Clark also contends that he should only have been convicted once rather than twice for unlawfully possessing both a firearm and the ammunition with which it was loaded. We agree that defendant is correct. Police officers Otis McGinnis and Daymeion Harris stopped an automobile that was traveling over 40 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone. Andre Clark was the driver and sole occupant of the car. The document was a cellular phone contract in the name of Paul Green. After a radio check disclosed that defendant did not have a valid license. He was placed under arrest for driving without a permit. The first place he looked was under the rear of the driver's seat. Clark also told the officers his name was Paul Green. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994582.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Souther was indicted for the two counts of bank robbery on November 2. He was sentenced on August 4. Souther's sentence was based upon a three level enhancement pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) of the Sentencing Guidelines for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031862p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MCCOLGIN Assistant Federal Defender Supervising Appellate Attorney DINA CHAVAR (Argued) This is an appeal by Kyle Irvin from a judgment in a criminal case entered pursuant to a plea of guilty to two counts of being a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Irvin was sentenced to seventy two months in prison. Where Irvin and Daequan were living. Irvin was prosecuted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for endangering the welfare of children and involuntary manslaughter. Whether inclusion of the state offenses in his criminal history calculation was plain error. We will therefore vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for resentencing.1 I. Irvin contends that this was error in view of the lack of direct proof that he exercised dominion and control over all of the firearms. Nor its finding that Irvin was not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Was clearly erroneous.2 A. That he did not have a license for the gun. He was timely. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/022083u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goodnight asserts: (1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that he used or carried a firearm during a drug trafficking crime or possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. (4) that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it exceeds the scope of Congress's regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause. We will affirm. I. Facts and Procedural Background The facts are fairly straightforward. In response to complaints that open air drug deals were occurring on Pittsburgh's North Side. Who was hiding behind bushes bordering the fence of a parking lot. Who were in the unmarked car. While the stop of the truck was underway. Who was counting his money. Ives Street while he was counting. The car they were in hit a curb and blew out a tire. ] </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-3063b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Roscoe C. The entertainment cen ter was located approximately ten to twelve feet from the front door. Proceedings Below Wahl was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of cocaine base. The parties stipulated to the facts that Wahl was previously convicted of a felony. The weapon recovered from Wahl's apartment was a 9 mm firearm. The firearm and ammunition were transported in interstate commerce. No fingerprints were recovered from the firearm. The district court did not immediately deny Wahl's motion as was the case in Sherod. Proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence). Submit the case to the jury and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. It must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved. Allows the court to reserve the actual ruling until after the case is submitted to the jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1648p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Dorsainvil'sfirst petition was denied on the merits. Ocsulis Dorsainvil was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. Dorsainvil was in the driver's seat of a pickup truck from which the drugs were to be sold. There was a gun in an open paper bag next to the driver's seat. It was purchased by and registered to Dorsainvil. There was testimony from police officers that. Dorsainvil was fumbling with his pants. Where cocaine was found. Making movements as if he were reaching for something in front of him. Was arrested without incident. His wallet and personal papers were found in the bag with the gun after his arrest. He denied that the gun was related in any way to the drug transaction. His pro se petition was denied on the merits by orders dated November 30. There was no appeal. The district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to address the petition because of changes effected in § 2255 procedure by the recently enacted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/95-1548.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. DESANTIAGO-FLORES<BR></A><BR> I. Defendant was indicted and tried on fourteen drug trafficking counts. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 511 months' imprisonment. Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to prove the bombings in counts 12 and 13 were committed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1648p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Dorsainvil'sfirst <p>petition was denied on the merits. Ocsulis Dorsainvil was convicted in <p>the United States District Court for the Middle District of <p>Pennsylvania of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. Dorsainvil <p>was in the driver's seat of a pickup truck from which the <p>drugs were to be sold. There was a gun in an open paper <p>bag next to the driver's seat. It was purchased by and registered to Dorsainvil. <p>There was testimony from police officers that. Dorsainvil was fumbling with his <p>pants. Where cocaine was found. Making movements <p>as if he were reaching for something in front of him. <p>Dorsainvil did not touch the gun. Was arrested without <p>incident. His wallet and personal papers were found in the <p>bag with the gun after his arrest. He denied that the <p>gun was related in any way to the drug transaction. His <p><u>pro se</u> petition was denied on the merits by orders dated <p>November 30. <p>and there was no appeal. The district court ruled that it <p>did not have jurisdiction to address the petition because of <p>changes effected in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-3163.htm">03-3163 -- U.S. V. GATEWOOD -- 06/07/2004<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ninety seven months. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The following Parts I thru III C are entered for the court by Judge Holloway. Part III D is being entered by Judge Hartz for the majority of this panel as the judgment of the court. Were jointly indicted and convicted at trial of charges related to trafficking in methamphetamine in the District of New Mexico. Each now brings a direct (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We will address both appeals together. Defendant Appellant Steve Madrid was charged in a superseding indictment on six counts and convicted at jury trial on all six. Count I was a charge against Steve Madrid and Jose Madrid of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & 846. V were discrete charges against Steve Madrid of distribution of methamphetamine. Defendant Appellant Jose Madrid was charged only in Count I and. Was convicted on that charge. Steve Madrid was sentenced to 235 months on the conspiracy and trafficking counts and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-5685.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DELEVEAUX (3/9/2000, NO. 98-5685)<BR></A><BR> We find that justification is available as an affirmative defense to this strict liability offense and that the court properly instructed the jury that Deleveaux must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.</P> <P><CENTER>I. That the pistol described in the indictment was a firearm in and affecting commerce.</P> <P> At trial. Deleveaux testified and acknowledged that as a convicted felon he was not supposed to possess a firearm. This pistol had been placed in the attic crawl space that was accessible through the master bedroom of his residence. Deleveaux was not residing in the home. Deleveaux stated that he had moved out in October 1996 and was just there for a visit when his wife showed him the gun. The Shooting</EM></P> <P> It is undisputed that. Deleveaux's theory of defense was that he was justified in possessing the pistol on May 23. The Government and Deleveaux presented conflicting evidence about the events that spurred Deleveaux to use the pistol.</P> <P> Deleveaux testified that he heard banging at his front door while he was upstairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-5685.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DELEVEAUX (3/9/2000, NO. 98-5685)<BR></A><BR> We find that justification is available as an affirmative defense to this strict liability offense and that the court properly instructed the jury that Deleveaux must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.</P> <P><CENTER>I. That the pistol described in the indictment was a firearm in and affecting commerce.</P> <P> At trial. Deleveaux testified and acknowledged that as a convicted felon he was not supposed to possess a firearm. This pistol had been placed in the attic crawl space that was accessible through the master bedroom of his residence. Deleveaux was not residing in the home. Deleveaux stated that he had moved out in October 1996 and was just there for a visit when his wife showed him the gun. The Shooting</EM></P> <P> It is undisputed that. Deleveaux's theory of defense was that he was justified in possessing the pistol on May 23. The Government and Deleveaux presented conflicting evidence about the events that spurred Deleveaux to use the pistol.</P> <P> Deleveaux testified that he heard banging at his front door while he was upstairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/014086p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm his robbery conviction and his convictions for the federal crimes of interference with commerce by robbery and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. We will reverse his conviction for possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and remand for a new trial. We will also reverse his conviction for possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school but remand with a direction to enter a judgment of acquittal on that charge. Was robbed. Were in the bar at the time. She said she was scared and threw $15 at the masked robbers. Charles testified that the two men wore white T shirts and were not wearing masks when he saw them enter the bar. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-1231.htm">00-1231 -- U.S. V. WHITAKER -- 04/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/001583P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roberts was sentenced to 112 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. He was ordered to pay a special assessment of $100. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following summary of the background is based upon the evidence presented at trial. Shortly after Roberts was released from prison for 1992 bank robberies. Mitchell was having financial difficulties and suggested to Roberts that they rob a bank together. It was agreed that Mitchell would get 60% and Roberts would get 40% of the proceeds. Although he never displayed one and did not actually have one on his person. Placed a handgun in the glove box of the borrowed vehicle during the time the two men were preparing for the bank robbery and that the gun remained in the glove box while Mitchell robbed the bank. She showed him that the second drawer was empty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1213.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is granted. Is attached to this order. Ledford responded that he knew he was not supposed to have a gun because he was a convicted felon. Ledford also said the gun was functional. Subsequent tests confirmed that the gun was functional. Ledford was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The government must establish three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of a felony. (3) the possession was in or affecting interstate commerce. Ledford stipulated that he had previously been convicted of a felony and that possession of the gun was in or affecting interstate commerce. The prosecutor]: And where were you? Q: And what was that concern? We have briefed this pretrial and we don't believe that it is hearsay. If you will allow me to refer to it as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In which it granted the Defendants' request for a summary judgment on the grounds that (1) they had a reasonable suspicion that Fisher was suicidal. Their actions in affecting a seizure of Fisher were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. (2) there was no genuine 1 No. 02 3996 Fisher. Fisher asserts that the officers who seized him did not have probable cause to justify1 a mental health seizure. Upon gathering that this was possibly a suicidal person. Who are husband and wife. Who was still seated in his folding chair approximately 250 yards away. The officers noticed he was carrying a rifle slung over his shoulder. Is also a named Plaintiff Appellant in this cause of action. Her state law claim for infliction of emotional distress was dismissed by the district court. Which declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of the state law claims after it concluded that the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Those claims are not the subject of this appeal. Although the dissent complains that it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODAtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5480-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a case about a gun that could not shoot. Rivera argues (1) that the jury's verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence because the defective weapon in question did not meet the definition of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0345p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. Stuut was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment. II A district court's determination that a defendant possessed a firearm during a drug crime is a factual finding that this court reviews for clear error. (2) such possession was during the commission of the offense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0301p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wesley Hargrove was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appeals his sentence on the grounds that his prior felonies were not violent within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0560n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants were convicted by a jury of interfering with commerce by means of robbery. Herron was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 140 months. Sitting by designation. * Nos. 06 5319 and 06 5362 Willis was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1. BACKGROUND Willis was convicted of robbing seven women's clothing stores in or near Memphis. (J.A. 62 78) Herron was convicted for participating in the July 3. The facts underlying each robbery are set forth below. Willis entered the store a short time before closing time and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5038.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellant Paul Hodges was indicted on August 2. Hodges was found guilty. Three years' (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The only issue presented to us is the correctness of the district court's denial of Hodges' motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm Hodges' conviction. At 4 (all references to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011630P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The complete facts of this case are set forth in an earlier opinion addressing Johnson's direct appeal. A short summary will suffice here. His sentence of 105 months' imprisonment was affirmed on direct appeal. The district court granted Johnson a certificate of appealability on the claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that a firearm was used during the bank robbery. The basis for his conviction on this charge was the testimony of Rikki Kreamer. Only the butt of the gun was visible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sandoval</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. N ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1360.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Meade was acquitted of all remaining counts. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994417.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 8 the end of the paragraph is deleted. Is replaced with the following: The district court did not clearly err in finding Harrison could reasonably foresee that one of his armed co defendants might fire a weapon so as to create a risk of serious bodily injury. Harrison was sentenced to a term of fifty seven months imprisonment. That the district court erred in sentencing them to ten year consecutive sentences for their firearm convictions when neither was charged with violating § 924(c)(1)(B)(i). Were also passengers in the cars. No one was seriously injured. Arguing that the shots fired at the officers were not part of the offense of conviction (the bank robbery). He also questioned whether the MAC 11 charged in the indictment was a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in § 921(a)(30). The district court found that the firearm charged as a MAC11 was actually a SWD M 11. Enhancements for such factors were elements of the offense that were required to be charged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515067.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The robbery was recorded on the post office's video recorder.1 On August 31. Dowd's counsel conceded that Dowd is clearly identifiable in the 2 video. found the remaining stolen money orders in Dowd's car. The gun used in the robbery was never recovered. Dowd was arrested in Florida. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955036.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Should stand.1 Chong and Chang were convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm. Ct. 501 1 Argument before a three judge panel was held on October 29. Before an opinion in the case was published. Argument before the full court was heard on April 8. Chong and Chang were convicted of conspiracy to kidnap. Chong also was convicted of bringing in aliens. Chong and Chang claim that they are entitled to new trials because of numerous procedural errors made by the district court. The Chinese nationals were told by the smugglers that they could pay this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert A. Were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas. Polsby were on the brief for amici curiae Professors Frederick Bieber. Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi was on the brief for amicus curiae Congress of Racial Equality. Ferrara was on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Rights Union in support of appellants. Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal. With him on the brief were Robert J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Ernest McGill in support of appellees. Were on the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-2295.htm">96-2295 -- U.S. V. MCDONALD -- 08/04/1998<BR></A><BR> (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict her of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Semi automatic handgun he was pointing at her. Who was not armed. Where McDonald was apprehended by police when she stepped from the car. Both Lee and McLeod were subsequently ordered from the car. As he was getting out of the car. The shot proved fatal. <p> McDonald and Lee were charged in a three count indictment with conspiracy to commit bank robbery. McDonald and Lee also were charged on an aiding and abetting theory. 2255 relief. <p> We have already ruled on the issues raised by Lee. We have affirmed the district court's denial of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-3167a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Mary T. Were on the brief.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The defendant in this case was <p> charged with six related offenses. The defendant contends the evidence obtained <p> from his house should have been suppressed because it <p> resulted from a warrantless entry that was not justified by <p> either the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FDB6EB169909FD2488256D2B007F3603/$file/9850330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was for the most part concealed. Which was briefly and inadvertently displayed during the robbery. Therefore that he should have only been convicted for unarmed bank robbery under § 2113(a). Prior decisions have dealt with the issue of what constitutes an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-6173.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR<BR></A><BR> (2) his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was not supported by sufficient evidence. Taylor was arrested for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Is denied. Counsel is requested to serve in a stand by advisory capacity only. The defendant is directed to declare his intentions in this regard by written statement filed with the clerk of court within ten (10) days to that effect. I want to make sure that this trial is fair to you and fair to your co defendant as well as to the government. The cocaine was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/266F5CBADC119DD9882571FF0055EBD0/$file/0530503.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nichols also argues that his sentence was unreasonable. We further hold that Nichols' sentence was not unreasonable. Both of which were reported stolen in late June 2004. Where they were being stored. The firearm used in the assault was the Glock that police had found in the laundry basket at Sinclair's home. Nichols informed an ATF agent that both he and Sinclair were methamphetamine addicts in the summer of 2004. He claimed to have purchased the gun from an unknown individual on the street. That the gun he used in the July 19 assault was a Glock. None of the guns listed in the indictment was a Glock. Pursuant to which Count Two was dismissed. With a two level increase under § 2K2.1(b)(4) because the firearms were stolen. Which is a specific offense characteristic that provides for a four level increase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AAF7480A4A794A48825728F0000A4E2/$file/0610062.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lopez contends that insufficient evidence supported his convictions under these counts because no rational jury could have found each of the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who was in the passenger seat. Lean over as if he were placing something under his seat. The officers learned who Lopez was and that he was a convicted felon and a previously deported illegal alien. Lopez was unable to provide any corroborating information. The cocaine was divided into multiple </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6282.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kevin Young was convicted of first degree murder for shooting and killing Joseph Sutton during a robbery at the Charles Steak House (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-3005a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2095.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Was on brief. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/031393P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A .38 caliber revolver was reported stolen from a gun shop in Lee's Summit. Hedger was seen carrying a .38 caliber revolver in another area gun shop in Bates County. The owner of the Bates County gun shop knew Hedger was a convicted felon and was prohibited from possessing firearms. When Hedger was arrested later the same day. The owner of the Lee's Summit gun shop identified Hedger as being present in the gun shop at the approximate time the revolver was stolen. Hedger was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hedger was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment. The district court assessed the (b)(4) enhancement because the firearm Hedger possessed was stolen. The (b)(5) enhancement because the firearm was possessed in connection with another felony offense. That is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0328p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They then climbed through a partially open window to make sure that no one inside was injured from the gunshots. He was charged with the following three counts: (1) possession of a firearm by a felon. Huffman was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. Although the 911 call was placed around noon. When the shots were fired. Which were not obstructed by curtains or blinds. They also saw several pieces of furniture in the house suggesting that the house was occupied. Dotson and Womack believed that the bullet marks on the exterior and interior walls of the house were consistent with those fired from automatic weapons commonly used in drive by shootings in the area. They were not asked if they had heard any sounds indicating that someone was injured as a result of the gunshots. A fully loaded automatic assault rifle with a laser scope was on the table directly in front of him. He was later charged with (1) possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/01-5016.htm">01-5016 -- U.S. V. BASHAM -- 10/22/2001<BR></A><BR> He contends that the evidence discovered during the search of his residence should have been suppressed because the search warrant was invalid. In that the magistrate issuing the warrant failed to inquire as to the method by which it was to be executed. The warrant itself was based on omission. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2392.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. Arguing that she was inadequately informed of the elements of the crime to which she pleaded guilty. We affirm Medina's conviction.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I.</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Medina was a police officer for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico when she became involved in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Medina was indicted on seven counts along with three co defendants. Which was granted.</P> <P> During the plea colloquy at issue. Medina informed the district court that although she was aware that there were weapons in the conspiracy. She herself never carried a weapon.</P> <P> The question before us is whether the colloquy that ensued demonstrates that the district court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0559n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Michigan state prison after being found guilty in a bench trial of two counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct. Petitioner was tried and convicted of two counts of firstdegree criminal sexual conduct but was acquitted of the other three counts. Inasmuch as Petitioner was a third habitual offender under Mich. Which was based on inconsistent and inadequate findings of fact. B. FACTS The following facts were found by the state court of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wilk was on brief forappellant. Were on brief for appellee.May 20. Hern ndez was indicted. We are unpersuaded by his claims of errorand affirm. Ramirez's problem was that he did not actually have thatmuch money. Ramirez offered vague assurances that he was sure of whathe was doing and that the money would be repaid. AlthoughHern ndez was reluctant to lend this sizeable amount of capitalwithout knowing the specifics of the business deal. The day the drug deal was to takeplace. Ramirez finally informed Hern ndez that the money was beingused to purchase cocaine. Which was in a sports gearbag. When Hern ndez was arrested. Hernandez was indicted on three counts: 1) conspiracy topossess the seven kilograms of cocaine with the intent todistribute. Ramirez and Cabrera were also indicted. While Ramirez was on the stand. The case was eventually sent to the jury. We are at an impasse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051118np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Swank and Sanderson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1754.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Rankin & Sultan were on brief for appellant Brian Smith. Were on brief for appellee. Mark Duggan was in Charlestown. Who was the mother of Smith's son and Duggan's former girlfriend. Who was thirty to forty feet away. There was a standoff. Was the godmother of Smith's and King's son. Which was parked nearby. Veneau pulled his friend Viens back from Smith as Smith was pulled into the center of the Lincoln's back seat. Who was still outside the Lincoln. Who was lying in the street. One of the entry wounds was in his left front chest. While the exit wound was in the right side of his chest. Viens was uncooperative. One of the casings was found approximately fifteen to twenty five feet from where Viens was lying when the police and paramedics found him. The other casing was recovered an additional ten to twenty feet away from the first casing. Smith and Yanovitch were arrested on the basis of a complaint. Smith and Yanovitch stipulated that they were convicted felons at the time of the shooting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612592.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wojtek Ciszkowski was convicted by a jury on charges of murder for hire. Because the firearm that was intended to be used to commit the murder was equipped with a silencer. Ciszkowski's sentence was drastically lengthened due to the application of a thirty year mandatory minimum. Arguing that he was set up by the government and claiming that he did not know the firearm was equipped with a silencer when he took it from the government informant. He argues that his conviction on the firearm charge should be reversed because the district court failed to instruct the jury that it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the firearm was equipped with a silencer. He also argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to realize that it could reduce his sentence upon a finding that the government's conduct was outrageous. Told agents he was being threatened. Chrostowski met with Ciszkowski and told Ciszkowski that he was looking to find someone to kill Arabasz before Chrostowski's next court date. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032795p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Remy Augustin was convicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands of carjacking. Will vacate that conviction. The judgment and sentence will otherwise be affirmed.1 I. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whose sole argument on appeal is the insufficiency of the evidence. Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0089n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants appellants Irvin Lamont Upshaw and Rodney Rice are former police officers of the fifth precinct of the Detroit Police Department. Upshaw and Rice were each convicted by a jury of various offenses. The gravamen of their offenses was that they abused their positions as law enforcement officers for personal gain and. Upshaw and Rice were implicated in numerous criminal incidents. Those relevant to this appeal are recounted separately here. Sometimes marijuana sales were made in the back of the store as well. The enclosed area behind the counter was accessible only through a door that Darwich kept locked. Officers Rice and Upshaw were in the store frequently and were seen behind the plexiglass on occasion. Marijuana sales were completed even when these officers were in the store and in uniform. Which was always greater than the usual cash price at which Darwich sold the marijuana. As long as I was down with him. We didn't have to worry about the police and going to jail or nothing like that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-3118a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/98-4119.man.html">UNITED STATES V. WOODEN (3/8/1999, NO. 98-4119)<BR></A><BR> The district court should have enhanced his offense level by only five points under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for brandishing. Or possessing a firearm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-5041.htm">03-5041 -- U.S. V. THOMAS -- 06/18/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024664.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Kenzie Hylton was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Contending (1) that the firearm was seized pursuant to a warrantless search of his girlfriend's apartment where he was living. (2) that his later statement admitting possession of the firearm was obtained without the benefit of counsel at a time when his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached. Telling the police that Hylton was in her apartment with a gun and that he would not let her in. She also told the officers that a gun was located </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/99-5074.htm">99-5074 -- U.S. V. ALEXANDER -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Jonathan Joel Alexander appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The gun and shells were located approximately three to four feet from a dresser where agents seized between one quarter to one half kilo of cocaine. (2) he is eligible for the two level </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/98-4119.man.html">UNITED STATES V. WOODEN (3/8/1999, NO. 98-4119)<BR></A><BR> The district court should have enhanced his offense level by only five points under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for brandishing. Or possessing a firearm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0658n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Ian Flores was indicted on June 30. Flores No. 05 4091 Page 2 suppress seeking to suppress the gun found in his home by officers who were searching for a fugitive and also to suppress the statements he made concerning ownership of the gun. Marshals Task Force and police officers from the Lorain Police Department were looking for a murder suspect named Anthony Villa. The officers had received information that Flores was a close associate of Villa's. 1 Flores testified at the suppression hearing that Villa is his first cousin. Flores No. 05 4091 Page 3 were hiding there. Flores said that he was not surprised that the officers had come to his house looking for Villa. Detective Earl asked Flores for verbal consent to search the house to see if Villa was hiding there. He also testified that none of the officers said anything that was intimidating. There was a factual dispute at the suppression hearing concerning the location of the gun when it was found. The bed was not made. Was being questioned by one of the marshals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1895p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 2255 motion alleging that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. Ct. 501 (1995).1 We conclude that the evidence was sufficient. I. Ramos was indicted and tried before a jury for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Is inapplicable here. 2 Street in York. Were also stored in the third floor apartment. Candida Valentin testified that she saw a firearm in that apartment on one occasion: Q: When you went to the second floor apartment was there ever any time when you saw any weapons? Q: Do you recall when that would have been? It was a weapon. A: And it was a handgun and he told me he had bought it and I wanted to see it out of curiosity. That was the only time I seen it. The district court stated: It may be that a person used a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime if you find that the circumstances surrounding the presence of a firearm in a place where drugs are traded suggest that the firearm was located so as to be quickly and easily available for use during drug transactions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ECAAD9B7951CA4DB88256FEE007E4D8C/$file/0430208opn.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court erred in determining that he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in a locked container that the district court found was readily identifiable as a gun case based on its outward appearance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Officer Hulsizer's request was answered by Deputy Richard K. Gust and his companions were carrying cases that the officers testified they were readily able to identify as gun cases.1 The officers detained Gust and his There are factual disputes as to whether there were two or three cases. Whether one of the cases was cloth or plastic. It is unneces1 UNITED STATES v. Gust also told the police that the cases he and his companions were carrying contained guns. Officer Hulsizer searched the gun cases2 and found the sawed off shotgun that formed the basis for Gust's prosecution and conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).3 sary for us to consider these disputes because there is no question that the case containing the sawed off shotgun was the plastic Bushmaster case pictured in Defendant's Exhibits 102 06. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1656.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 17. Thompson was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal BOWNES. Appellant argues that his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because: (1) the jury was not instructed to find all of the essential elements of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his felony murder conviction under the Commonwealth's theory of guilt. Appellant's convictions are based on the events of November 12. Apparently there was an ongoing dispute between Eddie and various members of the Rodriguez family. There was evidence that several members of that family. One who was believed to be Jose. There was evidence to the effect that appellant agreed to accompany Eddie in order to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/04-3159a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Kenneth L. The minimum penalty increases to seven years if the firearm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/952949P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was tried by jury and found guilty on charges of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). White moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence against him was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction under the *The HONORABLE JOHN B. 1996). be upheld if there is an interpretation of the evidence that would allow a reasonable minded jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. White argues that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. There is more than sufficient evidence that White knowingly possessed the cocaine base. Louis while they were looking for an individual named Michael Cooper. White Officer approached White and asked him if he was Cooper. looked in the direction of the officers. We find unpersuasive White's argument that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he possessed the cocaine base because the plastic bag was not tested for his fingerprints. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2571.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Franklyn Liranzo was a passenger in a car stopped by Massachusetts state troopers in the fall of 2001. A Llama .380 semi automatic handgun was found underneath his seat. Liranzo was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He challenges his conviction on the grounds that 1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish Liranzo's constructive possession of the firearm. 2) admission of testimony by the arresting officers about their assignments to a gang task force was prejudicial error. They noticed that the Nissan's rear license plate was only hanging by a single screw. Who was also in the general area in a separate unmarked police car. He carefully observed the two front occupants of the car and paid particular attention to their hands partly because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051468np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> From inside the unmarked van where he was conducting surveillance. Whether the jury found Pryor 3 guilty on count seven is a matter of dispute in the present case. Crittenton was sentenced in December 2004. Crittenton was resentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. Pryor was sentenced in January 2005. Shortly after Booker was decided. No such notice was sent to Crittenton. We entered an order stating: Appellant's unopposed motion for summary remand is 4 granted. We have determined that the sentencing issues Appellant raises are best determined by the District Court in the first instance. No other aspect of his conviction or sentence was at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014211.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> HEMINGWAY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He contends that he did not meet the ACCA's definition of an armed career criminal because he did not have three prior convictions for violent or drug related felonies. As is required to trigger the enhanced sentencing provisions of the ACCA. Was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/992809P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court1 found that the claim was procedurally barred and that McNeal has shown neither cause and prejudice nor actual innocence in his effort to overcome the default. Louis Metropolitan Police received a tip from a confidential informant that a person matching McNeal's description was selling crack cocaine at a residence. They also found a .22 caliber Marlin rifle next to McNeal and a shotgun was found in a first floor bedroom. Numerous other people were present in the house. Only McNeal was arrested. McNeal was indicted for possession with intent to distribute the cocaine base and using or carrying a firearm during the offense. A handgun were placed. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 McNeal was sentenced to 151 months' imprisonment on the drug trafficking count and 60 months' imprisonment on the firearm count. Which was affirmed on appeal. McNeal cannot show cause and prejudice because he could have raised this argument at the time of his guilty plea. 685 (8th Cir. 2000) (explaining that even if the court would have been unlikely to accept a pre Bailey </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0440n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The firearms providing the basis for these charges were discovered during a search of Moore's residence conducted on September 10. These firearms were found inside a large gun safe in the closet of the master bedroom. Were otherwise </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416502.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that possession of a firearm by a felon is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/022065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bushwa Farmer was found guilty and convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Including a sentence enhancement for obstructing justice because Farmer testified that he was not in possession of the firearm. Farmer was arrested by Kansas City. The gun was seized and sent to the crime lab. Where it was logged into evidence. The traffic charges were resolved. No charges were brought relating to the handgun. Forty days after the firearm was delivered to the crime lab. It was destroyed pursuant to what the government claims is Kansas City. A program in Kansas City through which felons arrested within the city limits of Kansas City are charged in federal court rather than in city or state court. Farmer was convicted. The district court granted his motion for a new trial after it concluded the prosecution had elicited testimony from ATF Agent Randall Roberts that was more After reviewing Kansas City Police Department policies on line. There is a policy outlining destruction of firearms voluntarily turned into police. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-8040.htm">01-8040 -- U.S. V. NORTON -- 04/23/2002<BR></A><BR> Janet Norton was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 120 months. Contending it was clearly improbable the firearm she possessed was connected with the offense. 2D1.1(b)(1) is broad. Was eventually stopped. Tucked under clothing in her bedroom dresser drawer was a silencer made from the purple casing of a Mag Lite flashlight. One of which was fully loaded. <p> Ms. Which provides for such an increase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/032562np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court committed reversible error. In admitting into evidence a statement that the defendant allegedly made that he obliterated the serial number from the gun he was selling because the gun was used in other shootings. Was obliterating the firearm's serial number. That he was doing so because he did not want the gun traced back to him. The recovered firearm was sent to the ATF laboratory where the serial number was raised through a chemical process. Sills testified at trial that while the sale was taking place. To Sills's testimony indicating (1) that Feliciano was drilling off the firearm serial number because of its prior use in other shootings. Sills subsequently testified at trial that the defendant actually made the challenged statement when he was selling the gun to him. His objections were essentially based on Rule 404(b) regarding the admission of evidence of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/96-3167a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: The defendant in this case was charged with six related offenses. The defendant contends the evidence obtained from his house should have been suppressed because it resulted from a warrantless entry that was not justified by either the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1015.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The facts relevant to this appeal are not disputed. Ortiz was arrested when he tried to sell a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1507_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted with him on the drug charges. Their appeals have been consolidated. Numerous trial and sentencing errors are alleged. McLee argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the firearms charges. Both defendants contend that certain evidence predating the conspiracy was erroneously admitted. That their right of cross examination was erroneously restricted. That the government's wiretap evidence should have 2 Nos. 04 1507 & 04 1535 been excluded. They also argue that factual findings made by the district court at sentencing were clearly erroneous. I. Background Trial evidence established that McLee and MurphJackson were intimately involved in all aspects of a largescale cocaine distribution operation run from the south side of Chicago by a man named Kevin Turner. Turner and other subordinate members of the conspiracy were indicted along with McLee and Murph Jackson. McLee and Murph Jackson were paid a salary by Turner for their services. McLee was originally Turner's righthand man and the person trusted to have control over the cocaine during the period between purchase and sale. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3100a.html">U.S. V. ALHAJI M. SESAY<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7277985C846377428825732B0081BA47/$file/0630398.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Valenzuela appeals the district court's enhancement of his sentence under § 2K2.1(b)(5) arguing that his other felony offense was a firearms trafficking or possession offense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Araiza knew Valenzuela had a suspended drivThe relevant Application Note in the 2005 version of the Sentencing Guidelines was 15. However it was listed as Application Note 18 in prior versions of the Sentencing Guidelines. Was wanted for parole violations. Was a suspect in several recent burglaries and vehicle thefts. While Araiza was speaking with Valenzuela on the driver's side. After Valenzuela was arrested. Valenzuela told the officers that: (1) about one hour before he was stopped. (3) he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0622n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lorenzo Hibbler ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0355n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to fifty one months of imprisonment. The officer believed were used to package </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/01-6105.htm">01-6105 -- U.S. V. FARROW -- 01/24/2002<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to sixty three months in prison to be followed by a three year term of supervised release. Farrow complains that the district court erred in determining his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines by finding him to have possessed a dangerous weapon during the robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313359.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government alleged that Wright was in knowing possession of the weapon when Mulberry. (5) that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional. While we will address each ground in turn. Determined that Wright was intoxicated. Although the precise timing is unclear from the record. Wright commented that the officers were lucky he had not made it back to his car because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1331.htm">98-1331 -- U.S. V. EADS -- 08/18/1999<BR></A><BR> This transaction was videotaped. <p> The government also presented evidence at trial of numerous drug transactions not directly involving Mr. Eads was tried jointly with Robert Bernhardt and Jon Williams. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on count 1. (2) there was insufficient evidence that he participated in the charged conspiracy. (4) the jury instructions violated his right to have the charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (5) there was insufficient evidence that he had been twice convicted of felony drug offenses. (6) his sentence should not have been enhanced based on the purity of the drugs involved in the transaction because of the government's control over the quality of the drugs. 924(c)(1) was improper absent a finding that he knew that the firearm in question was a machine gun. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/023070p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine if the district court correctly determined that the defendant possessed a gun </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0374n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellant Eric Peyton was found guilty of carjacking. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-4262.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. SPRING<BR></A><BR> Spring and Matthew Corey Monitz were involved. Spring was arraigned on August 19. Monitz were tried separately. Spring was set for October 4. A superseding indictment was filed on September 8. The superseding indictment also alleged that several of the crimes charged in the original indictment were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. A new trial date was set for February 7. A hearing was held on the withdrawal motion on January 21. I think we ought to have new counsel appear as soon as that is reasonably possible so that we can have these new dates set. The order memorializing the court's findings in the January 21 hearing was not in fact entered until November 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jury trial in this matter currently scheduled to commence on February 7. Is vacated and will be rescheduled upon appointment of new counsel for defendant. The continuance resulting from this appointment of new counsel is necessary to insure continuity of counsel for defendant and to allow reasonable time necessary for effective preparation by new counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2587_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant also argues that the district court's jury instructions constructively amended the indictment and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. We also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict and the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment. He worked his way up to junior accountant and was eventually transferred to the bank's branch in Villa Park. 000 of the bank's money before an investigation was launched. After learning that he was under investigation. They were later apprehended. Jones was charged with attempted bank robbery. Bank fraud.1 He was convicted after a jury trial. The court imposed the mandatory minimum ten year term that applies to use of a firearm during a crime of violence if the firearm is discharged. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (specifying a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years if a firearm is discharged during a crime of violence). Which provides: Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other 1 McDaniel was also charged with these crimes as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/98-5046.htm">98-5046 -- U.S. V. PHILLIPS -- 11/05/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Gary Phillips appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/981073P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rogers was tried and convicted of possession of methamphetamine and marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). A confidential informant named Mark Gamble told the Fort Smith police that Larry Rogers was selling methamphetamine and marijuana on property that Rogers owned in rural Sebastian County. Two motor homes were located on this acreage. As well as a metal barn that was partially under construction. (They were unable to determine which of the two motor homes was his because they were unable to see a license plate tag or a VIN number on either of the motor homes.). Nobody was there. Indicating someone was living there. A package of methamphetamine was found in the cushion of a chair. On a kitchen cabinet near where the revolver and methamphetamine were seized. There were large plastic bags of marijuana. There was more 3 methamphetamine. There was over $32. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1240.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nevels was convicted of two federal firearm possession charges in March 2006 and was sentenced as an armed career criminal pursuant to <hr> 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). He contends that the government's introduction of expert testimony describing how he shot and killed an individual in his home was unfairly prejudicial in a firearms possession trial. There will be gun powder on my hands. On the couch next to McLamb's left hand was a Ruger P89 semi automatic pistol with an extended magazine. The chamber was fully loaded and had not been fired. Another pistol was recovered in the same vicinity. This was a Ruger P95 semi automatic pistol. The charges were later dismissed in favor of two federal charges: (1) one count of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. A. Pretrial Disclosure of Witness's Identity Nevels first claims the district court erred in permitting the testimony of a witness who was disclosed to the defense just prior to trial. Prosecutors believed she would testify that she had seen Nevels with an identical semi automatic pistol two weeks before the shooting and that Nevels and the victim were close friends. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413114.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal by the government is from a judgment of acquittal entered in favor of Eliany Molina after a jury convicted her of knowingly participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Because Molina was arrested in her bedroom. A reasonable jury could have found that Molina knowingly participated in the drug trafficking conspiracy. Because a firearm was found in the drawer of a nightstand that also contained the passports of both Molina and her brother. A reasonable jury also could have found that Molina possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Molina is the sister in law of Garza. Agents shouted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0028p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Period need not have made explicit reference to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in order for their identical. There were two people in the car. Shauver and Till were living together at the time. Lowe discovered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0301p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He asserts that the court was in error when it applied an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). Battle Creek police officers responded to a complaint that a man was seen pointing a shotgun and threatening an individual at 47 South 22nd Street. The officers noted that the shotgun was pointed at Mr. An indictment was filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. These charges were later dismissed on an order of nolle prosequi because Appellant was being prosecuted in federal court. Appellant was sentenced to serve 77 months imprisonment. Asserting that the conduct upon which he was convicted (Felon in Possession) was the same conduct the court used to enhance his sentence (Felonious Assault). (2) that the error was plain. Such review has been held appropriate when the legal decisio n is closely intertwined with the factual conclusions reached by the district court. The dispute is purely a legal issue: Assuming App ellant co mmitted a felo nious assault when he p ointed his firearm at the victim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0114n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts of Petitioner's offense were set forth by this court on direct review: Earl Anthony James left his house on the evening of October 12. Although each vehicle was registered in both his wife's and his name. A number of government witnesses testified that they heard a gunshot as James was driving out of the parking lot. A 911 call was made reporting a gunshot in the area. A police officer pulled James over because the police dispatcher had sent out a be on the lookout call for the Grand Am and because James was speeding. James testified that he had hidden the marijuana under the seat but that he was not aware of the presence of the holster or the revolver. He testified that his wife was familiar with and owned guns. She testified at trial that she was a gun enthusiast. That the gun was hers. He claims this was part of a plea bargain in which the state agreed to drop gun possession charges. Was on probation at the time of the incident. James was convicted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942314.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was imposed under the incorrect version of the Sentencing Guidelines and is the subject of the government's cross appeal. Is vacated. The case is remanded for resentencing. Commerce in firearms is regulated intensely by the federal government. Bailey was not permitted to stock weapons for future sale to police departments. Although Bailey's firearms business was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0118n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2) the jury conviction was not supported by constitutionally sufficient evidence. He observed two men who were helping a third to walk. Mayfield gave the following testimony: [T]he male that was on the bike put the bike down and got off of it. Who was the detail officer at the hospital that night. Vargo appeared and watched the two men carry the third into an apartment building that was just behind the hospital. One of the apartment doors was open. That that was the male with the gun. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-6187.htm">01-6187 -- U.S. V. EASTERLING -- 04/17/2002<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Easterling was wanted on an outstanding warrant for a supervised release violation. A sign posted at the garage stated it was open 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. As the officers were parked outside. He was arrested in the parking lot at approximately 5:40 p.m. as he left the garage. Several officers went into the garage through the unlocked exterior door to determine if anyone else was present. The gun was identified by serial number and determined to be a .380 caliber Taurus that belonged to Easterling's ex wife. Easterling was indicted for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> <center><u>Suppression of evidence</u></center> <p> Easterling contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the gun. The first is subjective. The second is objective. That expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1506.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Sabetta's girlfriend were going out to eat. Sabetta was no longer at the scene.</P> <P> In the afternoon of September 1. Andino was attacked by two men in connection with a separate dispute. While Sabetta and Andino were searching for Andino's attackers. Which Sabetta was driving. Sabetta and Andino were arrested.</P> <P> Sabetta was charged in federal district court with being a felon in possession of a firearm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2180.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1016.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On the cover sheet. Were on supplemental brief for appellee. Epifanio Morales Cruz were on supplemental brief for appellee. That the four men 3 were going to acquire a load of cocaine and ferry it to the main island of Puerto Rico. Mona Island is one of numerous small islands near Puerto Rico's main island. Is part of the Municipality of Cabo Rojo. Which also includes part of the main island's southwest corner.1 Mona Island is physically separated by about 39 miles of water from the main island of Puerto Rico. They were extended by Presidential Proclamation with qualifications to 12 miles. To which the U.S. is a signatory. After verifying that the boat in question was indeed away from its mooring. The 1 The only evidence in the record is that defendants picked up the cocaine at Mona Island. Mona Island is not just geographically part of the Puerto Rico Archipelago. Mona Island is also politically part of the Senatorial District of Mayaguez and of the Municipality of Cabo Rojo within that district. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/983999P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that although Dejan's claim of actual innocence to the gun charge was not procedurally barred in light of Bousley. We nevertheless affirm the district court's ultimate ruling that Dejan is not entitled to § 2255 relief. Defendant Dejan was found in the apartment. Along with his girlfriend who was the listed renter. The police also found approximately 517 grams of crack cocaine and a .410 gauge sawed off shotgun on the porch attached to apartment #4 (apartment #3 was attached to the porch as well. Dejan was indicted on June 23. Dejan explained that he was selling drugs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3162_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the disputed information. Would have led to Baker's acquittal. Malcolm Baker was standing on a sidewalk when two Chicago Police Department trainee officers observed him drinking from a beer bottle. As they were running. One of the officers noticed that Baker was clutching something in his waist area. He radioed the dispatch officer that they were dealing with a possible </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR> The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR> The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0245p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Crowell was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Asserting that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. (4) his sentence is not reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) Officer Jamie Scruggs was on patrol in north Nashville when he saw a white Chevrolet Lumina matching the description of a vehicle that had reportedly been involved in an earlier incident. Who were in the area. Who was the driver of the Chevrolet. An unidentified person who was never captured. Often indicated that a person was carrying a gun. He was approximately five to ten feet behind Crowell. Mallery emphasized his certainty that Crowell discarded a gun and that no one else was observed in the area where the gun was recovered. Later identified as a Ruger P 94 nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun.2 The gun was retrieved roughly thirty seconds to a minute after Crowell was apprehended. He was running in an attempt to cut off Crowell's escape when he saw the defendant pull a gun from his waistband and throw it to the ground. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 11/05/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1024.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rios Rosario</U> were on brief for appellant Lorenzo Pé. Castillo</U> were on brief for appellant Peñ. Os Rosario</U> were on brief for appellant Peñ. Were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/022361P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The officers were on foot patrol of a Kansas City. The gun was loaded and did not have a trigger lock. Malik called a witness who testified she met Malik the night he was arrested. Malik's counsel argued to exclude the informant's statements to police officers reporting Malik had a gun and was willing to use it on police officers. There is no doubt the ruling was definitive. Malik claims his right to cross examination was impeded. United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 3 2 Malik contends the statements of the informant relayed to the jury through the testimony of the police officers were hearsay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 07/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/96-3316.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. GILKEY<BR></A><BR> He argues that the court erred by imposing a four level enhancement to his base offense level under United States Sentencing Guideline ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/041258P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bell was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Bell also claims his sentence is The Honorable Richard E. The front desk clerk told Bell that Bodine was unavailable and directed him to the office of case manager Sandy Granger. Then said he wanted her to know how urgent the matter was. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0336p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendantappellant Larry Swafford was charged in a three count indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee with (1) possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. Swafford was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to 180 months imprisonment. Arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense and that the district court erred in admitting the testimony of law enforcement officers who testified (1) that the amounts of drugs possessed by Swafford were consistent with resale and that dealers often carry firearms in connection with their sales activities. Also inside the bag were numerous sandwich baggies. On the back of which was written </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-3061a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Four people were present at the time: Richard Spinner. Two of them a .380 caliber Colt semiautomatic pistol and a .45 caliber Sturm Ruger semiauto matic pistol were found under the cushions of a couch in the living room. Was found in the closet of a second floor bedroom. Spinner's fingerprints were also found on two other noteworthy items: a .45 caliber bullet. Which was inside the .45 caliber pistol. A box of .44 caliber bullets found in the closet where the semiautomatic rifle was recovered. No charges were brought against Spinner's sister or his mother. Spinner's cousin was prosecuted in a separate proceeding in juvenile court. The ability to control the contraband that was found there. It introduced into evidence Spinner's personal papers that were found in the bedroom. That he had sold 25 ziplock bags of crack to an undercover officer in front of the house at which the search warrant was executed. Which is commonly called an AR 15 rifle. The prosecutor asked Turner: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the 924(c)(1) count. We will conclude that venue was improper in New Jersey and. We will reverse Moreno's conviction under 4 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). We will affirm the defendants' convictions on all other counts. Lopez was arrested and the fourteen kilos of cocaine were seized. Montalvo told Avendano that the seizure of the fourteen kilos and the legal fees were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Remand for re sentencing. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/675F50250124F67F88256E5A00707BCD/$file/9710255.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Settle was conducting a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1808.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The district court ruled that all rulings applied to all defendants and motions joining co defendants' motions were unnecessary. That he was paid $150 for each one eighth kilogram of cocaine packaged. Nez Matta testified that by the time the drug operation was located at the Coral Beach mesa in 1991. The brothers were selling Santiago Lugo's heroin. Vila and was responsible for getting heroin to the street dealers. Guez' ability to run the drug point was in question. The Rosarios were still allowed to sell packages of heroin and cocaine. An expert witness testified that the notebooks were consistent with those kept by an illicit drug organization. He opined that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six <p>defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States <p>District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping <p>and conspiracy to kidnap. <p>and Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to <p>distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and <p>carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these <p>challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's <p>claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D4DF3B435F1A1AEB88256A800051FECE/$file/9710255.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Settle was conducting a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-11491.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRAY (8/7/2001, NO. 00-11491)<BR></A><BR> Gray's principal argument is that the Government failed to prove that the conduct giving rise to the robbery charge had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce. Effect on interstate commerce.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/99-10286.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COVER (1/4/2000, NO. 99-10286)<BR></A><BR> He argues that he should not have received a U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) enhancement for brandishing. He argues that he should not have received U.S.S.G. §§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). He argues that he should not have received a U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(7)(C) enhancement for the unknown quantity of money that was in vault at the time of the robbery. Who were forced at gunpoint to lie on the floor. <EM>See</EM> PSI ¶ 4. Cover and Wilson were apprehended at the scene after they reentered the bank and exited through a side door. <EM>See</EM> PSI ¶ 5. The motorist was released unharmed. <EM>See</EM> PSI ¶ 10. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-11491.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRAY (8/7/2001, NO. 00-11491)<BR></A><BR> Gray's principal argument is that the Government failed to prove that the conduct giving rise to the robbery charge had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce. Effect on interstate commerce.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/99-10286.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COVER (1/4/2000, NO. 99-10286)<BR></A><BR> He argues that he should not have received a U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) enhancement for brandishing. He argues that he should not have received U.S.S.G. §§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). He argues that he should not have received a U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(7)(C) enhancement for the unknown quantity of money that was in vault at the time of the robbery. Who were forced at gunpoint to lie on the floor. <EM>See</EM> PSI ¶ 4. Cover and Wilson were apprehended at the scene after they reentered the bank and exited through a side door. <EM>See</EM> PSI ¶ 5. The motorist was released unharmed. <EM>See</EM> PSI ¶ 10. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2260.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 9. Is amended as follows: On page 8. Was on consolidated brief for the United States. Bennett and Lionel Lussier were each charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Madore and King were indicted for various offenses. Bennett and Lussier were convicted on all counts and sentenced. Our familiar task on review of sufficiency is to consider the record as a whole and to determine. There was testimony that on the day of the mistaken raid. Was beaten and robbed of marijuana. King planned to beat up the man Madore suspected was behind the previous attack. King's testimony regarding the plan was less definitive. It is undisputed that shortly after this conversation the four men the appellants. Which they mistakenly believed was Hathorne's. Physically assaulting Wing and Morin while a gun was held to Wing's head. There was testimony. Wing testified that during the attack all three men were shouting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-4197.htm">96-4197 -- U.S. V. GUTIERREZ -- 02/13/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Jesse Gutierrez was convicted after a jury trial in 1992 of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to thirty months on the drug trafficking count and to the mandatory sixty months to be served consecutively on the firearm count. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. <u>See</u> <u>Gutierrez v. 924(c)(1) and that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him under the carry prong. A Salt Lake City police officer stopped a car in which Gutierrez was a passenger. Gutierrez was sitting. All occupants of the vehicle appeared to have fresh puncture wounds on their arms. The butt of the gun was visible sticking out from the seat. The police determined that the gun was not registered to Gutierrez. The police did not take fingerprints from either the gun or the packages of drugs. <p> Gutierrez was charged with and tried for possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count 1) and using or carrying a firearm in violation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/012198.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellants possessed and distributed a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1411_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Louis James was convicted of possession of more than fifty grams of crack cocaine (Count I). He was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. When both were living at a local motel. Collier learned from others at the motel that James was selling cocaine. Tiara Woods was in the house with her aunt. Woods asked who was knocking but did not open the door. Inside the shoebox was a pair of size 10 sneakers. On top of the sneakers were a small scale. Inside the glove was a loaded .25 caliber handgun. James' fingerprint was discovered on one of the baggies of cocaine found inside the shoe. Who was manufacturing and distributing crack from the Ash Street house. In which James and Woods were passengers. Or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. The government informed the court that this evidence was seized on February 10. Only a week after the crimes that were charged in the indictment. Drug paraphernalia and cash seized from Ash Street and from the contemporaneous traffic stop were admissible as evidence intricately related to the crime charged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/001300P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stuckey challenges the sentence by claiming that four prior drug convictions stemming from a military court martial should not have been used to enhance his sentence as an armed career criminal. BACKGROUND Stuckey was charged in a two count indictment. Was delivering presents to his relatives in Arkansas on Christmas Day. He was driving over ninety miles per hour down Interstate 40 when stopped by Arkansas state trooper Sam Koons. Stuckey was driving a car owned by Sheila Gray. The other items in the duffle bag were men's clothes. Gray came to the police station and was asked if she owned any guns. The jury learned that the handgun was traced to a sale made in February 1998 by Ray Abel. Stuckey was the purchaser. The court found that Stuckey was subject to an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 as an armed career criminal. Under which Stuckey was found to have: (a) distributed 4.52 grams of marijuana on August 26. Stuckey was arrested December 25. The guideline range would have been 51 to 63 months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/021036P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jermaine Harris was indicted after a search of his home revealed a weapon. He pled guilty to the weapons charges and was convicted by a jury of distribution and possession of cocaine base and of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of a mix containing cocaine base. United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 1 that the evidence at trial was insufficient for conviction. That his trial counsel was ineffective. I. After Harris sold some crack cocaine to an informant who was fitted with a recording device. Harris was the only person in the upstairs area at the time of the search. Harris was indicted for distribution of cocaine base. Watkins also testified that he had reserved a special pager code for customers who purchased significant amounts and that Harris was among them and had mentioned that he had an additional supplier in Iowa City. They testified that Harris had another cocaine source in the Davenport area whom Lewis identified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052343np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ledarro Northcutt was charged in a three count indictment with (1) possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Before us now is Northcutt's appeal from that conviction. In which he contends the evidence was insufficient. The jury instructions did not properly convey how the jury was to analyze whether he possessed the crack cocaine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Two Pittsburgh Police Officers were conducting surveillance of a black 1986 Ford Mustang. With whom the officers were familiar. The car was towed and inventoried. Concerned for the safety of Freeman's daughter and believing that Northcutt was in the house. Northcutt was then indicted for possessing with intent to distribute less than 5 grams of a mixture and substance containing crack cocaine (in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C)). Freeman testified that Northcutt was watching television at home when all relevant events occurred. Which actions were not consistent with personal use. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1535p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The federal courts which have considered this issue have reached different conclusions. We hold that it is sufficient for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant possessed a conditional intent to cause death or serious bodily harm to the carjacking victim in other words. A rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in this case had such an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Pamela White was inside her mother's home when she noticed Mark Stanley sitting at a table appearing jumpy. Who was inside the car. Who was still carrying the gun in his hand at the time. Tennessee was washing a car belonging to a friend. Anderson told Tennessee that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971660P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction and that it was plain error to submit a jury instruction that failed to comport with the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey. The undercover officer observed a long barreled gun that she thought was a rifle or a shotgun </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-2256.htm">96-2256 -- U.S. V. DIAZ-ZAPPATTA -- 11/25/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Codefendants Ulises Ramos Fernandez and Jose Diaz Zappatta appeal from their convictions following a jury trial.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/99CBE1EAE68B87E3882570D00001624D/$file/0330497.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Officers determined that Monzon was involved with that organization. Monzon was in bed at the time. Monzon was charged in three counts of a multi count indictment with: (1) Count 1. That is. That is. Monzon moved to have his counsel. Discharged and to have his originally appointed counsel re appointed. Decided he was not going to enter a plea upon arriving in court. Which was scheduled to commence the following week. Was dismissed. If there were a trial on Count 21. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/01-3100a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Sesay was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Appellant's main argument on this appeal is that the District Court deprived him of his rights to confront witnesses and to present a defense when it excluded evidence that appellant had a pre existing civilian complaint against the police officer who discovered the coat allegedly containing the gun and drugs that led to appellant's arrest. The District Court's evidentiary rulings were reasonable when they were issued before trial. We are therefore constrained to review appellant's challenges to the evidentiary exclusions under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1847.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Assistant United States Attorney were on brief. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts. Each man was carrying a firearm on his waistline. Who was carrying money. Was not witnessed. </P> <P> At one point during his surveillance. He and another unidentified individual were carrying a pillowcase that had rifle barrels protruding from it.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5263a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Steven H. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. With her on the brief were Robert J. The District Court held that these claims against the District were barred by appellant's failure to file a timely D.C. That after he was pursued by officers. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/001539P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was therefore subject to a consecutive term of five years in prison under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) & (c)(1)(D)(ii). Believing it was subsumed by the greater ten year drug sentence. § 924(c)(1) provides that the minimum sentences set forth therein shall apply </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A281B2F6192D65C088256A1C005CEAAA/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dillard was convicted of one felony count of inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was sitting on the porch of the house that she shared with Dil 1 The facts are taken from the opinion by the California Court of Appeal for the Second District. Dillard was not at home. Dillard was charged with: (1) one felony count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a cohabitant. The state trial court dismissed the two felony counts of assault with a firearm after defense counsel argued that those charges were unsupported by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004154.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> History of § 924(c)(1)(A) leads us to conclude that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/750D9B29738F3E6E88256E5A00707B4E/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: Slip opinion page 3775. Modify the last sentence of the second full paragraph to read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/98-3165.htm">98-3165 -- U.S. V. HINSHAW -- 01/12/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Appellant Douglas L. Hinshaw is a gun collector who possesses a total of sixty five firearms. He is also a business acquaintance of Garvin Mead. Hinshaw replied he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/149A0D8A460C27D888256E5A00707AB9/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dillard was convicted of one felony count of inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was sitting on the porch of the house that she shared with Dil 1 The facts are taken from the opinion by the California Court of Appeal for the Second District. Dillard was not at home. Dillard was charged with: (1) one felony count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a cohabitant. The state trial court dismissed the two felony counts of assault with a firearm after defense counsel argued that those charges were unsupported by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB8207DBB4B0768C88256A4F005B6B5E/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: Slip opinion page 3775. Modify the last sentence of the second full paragraph to read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0341p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a misspelling. The correct spelling will be used throughout this opinion. 1 1 No. 03 3841 Boone v. Page 2 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3506.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is a convicted felon. Allegedly for safekeeping while Jefferson was out of town. Jefferson was convicted by a jury of knowingly delivering a firearm to a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) and sentenced to 21 months in prison. Who is a convicted felon.1 Using the handgun's serial number. Correy was arrested on December 2. Both of which were for Correy. Correy gave one of the guns to Melvin so that Melvin could keep it in Melvin's safe while Correy was out of town for about a month. Correy stated that the last time he saw the gun was when Melvin placed it in the safe. Correy was indicted on one count of delivery of a firearm to a felon. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/99-3032a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Wilma A. We hold that s 2A4.1(b)(3) is properly applied where the gun is employed in a manner designed to coerce a third party so as to complete the kidnaping offense. That is. Where a photograph of a person pointing a gun at the head of a kidnaping victim is shown to the victim's parent in tandem with a telephonic threat of further injury to the victim in order to coerce the parent into paying a ransom. Although his sentencing was unnecessarily delayed for thirty three months despite his repeated requests for prompt sentencing. Concluding further that Yelverton's other challenges to his conviction are merit less. We affirm. 1 Yelverton was convicted of conspiracy to kidnap. Unlawful restraint is to be increased by two levels </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/01-10396.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. JACKSON (12/21/2001, NO. 01-10396)<BR></A><BR> Background</EM></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2001/01-10396.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. JACKSON (12/21/2001, NO. 01-10396)<BR></A><BR> Background</EM></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0678n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Keys was arrested. Keys was again brought before the district judge. Keys was apprehended after running nearly three blocks away from the door of the duplex. Both Ledgerwood and Keys then returned to the scene where the gun was left behind. Which was answered by an elderly man. Ledgerwood claimed she indicated the gun was in the freezer. Two I was really I was nervous about where that gun would end up. Ledgerwood discovered the gun was in fact loaded. A subsequent background check of Keys' record showed that he was previously convicted of a felony. Ledgerwood told the court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-6386.htm">01-6386 -- U.S. V. WYNNE -- 01/07/2003<BR></A><BR> Which was held on August 20. This hearing was scheduled for September 20. The final order was entered against Wynne by default. Foreman went to the duty judge to have the VPO amended to reflect her new address.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1297.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Adequately supports the lower court's conclusion that the officers were lawfully on the premises pursuant to the principal occupant's consent and that they seized the incriminating articles in the course of a permissible security frisk. I was visiting here with my friend. When the operator inquired whether the woman was placing the call surreptitiously. The dispatcher told the officers that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1493.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lopez was sentenced to sixty months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He also appeals the district court's decision not to impose a sentence reduction under USSG § 3B1.2(b) because he was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/002247P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we are unable to ascertain The Honorable Donald D. The firearm in question is a family heirloom Sears and Roebuck 20 gauge shotgun. Lewis was aware that because of his prior felony convictions he could not legally keep his deceased father's prized gun. Because the shotgun was a family heirloom. All other information he provided was accurate. The ATF form was submitted for clearance by the National Instant Check System. Lewis was denied clearance to reclaim the gun. The gun was immediately returned to Lewis's son. Lewis was indicted for possession of the firearm. He pled guilty to both counts and was given a three level downward adjustment to his Base Offense Level for acceptance of responsibility. The guideline sentencing range was seventy seven to ninety six months imprisonment. 2 At sentencing. Lewis filed a motion for a U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11 lesser harms downward departure claiming that his possession of the firearm and false statement on the ATF form were not the kinds of harms that Congress envisioned when it enacted the law proscribing those offenses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4709_006.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jamell Newbern was convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him as a career offender to 300 months' imprisonment after deciding that two of his prior convictions were for crimes of violence. Is not a crime of violence. Because it is. He was charged with one count of possession of crack with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At sentencing the district court concluded that Newbern was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The first is a 2000 conviction for reckless discharge of a firearm. Was incurred in 2001 as a result of Newbern's attempt to disarm a police officer. He argued nonetheless that reckless discharge of a firearm under Illinois law does not have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1113.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Gary ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110396.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Lawrence Prescott Jackson was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by two Florida police officers who observed the car cross over the center lane of a street. Under whose name there was an outstanding warrant. Police then advised Jackson that he was under arrest and attempted to handcuff him. Jackson was eventually subdued and handcuffed. A subsequent search of his left pant pocket revealed a .38 caliber Beretta pistol.2 1 One of the officers was later diagnosed and treated for a hairline fracture of his right wrist that he suffered as a result of this struggle. Was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He argued that application of both enhancements constituted improper double counting because they were based on the same underlying conduct. We will not disturb the sentencing court's factual findings absent clear error. He contends that his possession of the firearm was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/053660P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Conditionally granted a new trial on the same counts in the event the judgment of acquittal was vacated or reversed on appeal. Was a shoebox with a torn lid covering half of the box. Inside the shoebox was a loaded Taurus .38 caliber handgun. Lived at the residence and was present during the search on October 21. Wright testified Johnson was a frequent visitor. Although her name was on the residence's lease and the household utilities. Officers also located two other firearms in the residence: the first under a couch in the living room and the second inside a purse in a dresser located in the bedroom where Johnson was sleeping. Belonged to her and was usually stored in the bedroom closet. Wright further testified that on the day of the search (1) Johnson was alone. (2) Wright was the only one to enter the bedroom. Allen also verified the residence's northeast bedroom was Johnson's. Because Johnson was a felon and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/96-8891.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL (7/24/1998, NO. 96-8891)<BR></A><BR> Mitchell also contends that he was charged in a single count with violating <EM>both</EM> 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). The jury was not provided with instructions that would enable it to know that it could convict Mitchell of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) as a lesser included offense of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). We affirm the rulings of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A brief factual description of the robbery is necessary to our analysis. Shouted that they were robbing the bank. Were present. Jones enlisted the assistance of a uniformed police officer in a squad car who was responding to the bank robbery alarm. Were arrested. Just before their trial was set to begin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/054434P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> William Joseph Headbird was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. Headbird claims there was insufficient evidence supporting the jury's verdict. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 contends evidence of his prior convictions was erroneously admitted at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Morgan's home was peppered with gunfire. Deputy William Connor arrived about thirty to forty five seconds after the last shot was fired. Which were found to have cycled through the recovered .22 caliber rifle. A tape of which was entered into evidence at trial. Who was impeached with his prior felony convictions. Testified that Headbird was inside the house when the shots were fired at Morgan's home. Stated he ran from Deputy Cooper because he was frightened. Explained his admissions to Hartgerink were lies intended to impress her. The district court determined Headbird was subject to the enhanced penalty provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act because Headbird had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/026548.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His longtime girlfriend Beverly Monroe was convicted of his murder. Statements suggesting that Burde may have been suicidal. Challenging the court's conclusion that she procedurally defaulted certain aspects of her Brady claim.2 Because the Brady evidence3 on which the court relied is sufficient to warrant its award of habeas corpus relief. The district court decided that this adjudication was neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1849.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fuentes Agostini with whom Dominguez & Totti was on brief for appellant Torres Maldonada and Gotay Colon. Were on brief for appellee. That their motions for severance and for suppression of evidence were improperly denied. Two of the rooms were registered to false names. Santiago Alicea was wearing a bulletproof jacket. Is not a party to this appeal. 4 4 unidentified individual. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0118p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that a two level enhancement was warranted because Wynn possessed a destructive device. We conclude that because Wynn's sawed off shotgun is a weapon that will expel a projectile by the action of an explosive and has a barrel with a bore of more than one half inch in diameter. It is a destructive device as defined by Application Note 4 to § 2K2.1. The weapon in question was a .20 gauge shotgun with a modified overall length of 19.5 inches and a barrel length of 12.5 inches. Wynn admitted that the sawed off shotgun was a firearm as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(1) and (2). The Presentence Report further determined that a two level enhancement was warranted because Wynn's offense involved a destructive device as described in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a). He suggested that Application Note 4's language that a destructive device </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/96-8891.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL (7/24/1998, NO. 96-8891)<BR></A><BR> Mitchell also contends that he was charged in a single count with violating <EM>both</EM> 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). The jury was not provided with instructions that would enable it to know that it could convict Mitchell of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) as a lesser included offense of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). We affirm the rulings of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A brief factual description of the robbery is necessary to our analysis. Shouted that they were robbing the bank. Were present. Jones enlisted the assistance of a uniformed police officer in a squad car who was responding to the bank robbery alarm. Were arrested. Just before their trial was set to begin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314313.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was charged in a four count indictment with conspiracy to distribute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-4281.man.html">UNITED STATES V. AUDAIN (6/25/2001, NO. 99-4281)<BR></A><BR> The Defendants were convicted on all charges filed against them. Whether the Defendants have established prejudice.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-4281.man.html">UNITED STATES V. AUDAIN (6/25/2001, NO. 99-4281)<BR></A><BR> The Defendants were convicted on all charges filed against them. Whether the Defendants have established prejudice.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0013n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Copeland argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found. That he had actual knowledge that a firearm was in his carry on luggage. Defendant Gary Copeland was scheduled to travel with his wife on Air Tran Airlines. After a brief layover they were to continue on to Chatham. Flight 520 was scheduled to depart at 6:15 A.M. Copeland had been occupied with a large project for work and was attending a class three nights a week after work. The night before they were scheduled to fly out. Copeland continued to pack items into his briefcase.1 Both Copeland and his wife claimed the briefcase was stuffed full. Which required the presentation of their 1 The briefcase that Copeland was intending to carry onto the plane was not of the box type but more like a bag. 2 No. 03 5960 United States v. Stopped the x ray machine while Copeland's briefcase was still inside. That a firearm was contained within the briefcase. That there was only ammunition in the briefcase. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-3152a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Wilma A. (4) error by the district court in designating a prior conviction of appellant as a crime of violence for purposes of determining the guidelines base offense level.1 Although this is a close case. We find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict appellant of con structive possession of a loaded firearm. We think it prudent to register our observation that designating a prior conviction of appellant as a crime of violence for purposes of determining the guidelines base offense level was mistaken because the court did not 1 Appellant also argued that the firearm and ammunition counts were multiplicitous and hence that one of the two must be vacated on double jeopardy grounds. The government concedes on appeal that appellant's two convictions should be merged and one vacated. 2 We dismiss the threats count on jurisdictional grounds. have before it the necessary information to determine wheth er that conviction constituted a crime of violence as defined by the guidelines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0353a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lloyd was sentenced to consecutive terms of fortysix and eighty four months. Lloyd filed a timely appeal arguing that the second count of the indictment was insufficient or duplicitous. Certain evidentiary rulings made during his trial were an abuse of discretion. This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0593n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lloyd was sentenced to consecutive terms of fortysix and eighty four months. Lloyd filed a timely appeal arguing that the second count of the indictment was insufficient or duplicitous. Certain evidentiary rulings made during his trial were an abuse of discretion. Which was strapped together in 100 bill bunches. Into a blue pillowcase he was carrying. The police determined that Lloyd was a suspect and apprehended him. When Lloyd was taken into custody his shoes and clothes were secured as evidence. The sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed de novo. The first is using or carrying a firearm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-4091_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We shall direct a limited remand to the district court so that the court may determine whether it would be inclined to sentence Williams differently knowing that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. Wisconsin were notified that a fight had occurred during which someone had brandished a gun. Police officers were directed to an apartment to which one of the suspected combatants had fled. Williams was present in the apartment at that time of the search but identified himself to the officers using an alias and a false date of birth. He was taken into custody and charged under state law with resisting or obstructing an officer based on his attempt to disguise his identity. Which is where the revolver was found. That allegation was based on the fact that the revolver had been manufactured in Massachusetts. The Assistant United States Attorney ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-8064.htm">98-8064 -- U.S. V. TOMPKINS -- 03/29/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Torren Reed Tompkins appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1480.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Christopher Miller pled guilty to robbery affecting interstate (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The restaurant is a business in and affecting interstate commerce. Miller was armed with a firearm. The employees inside the building realized what was going on and telephoned the police. They were apprehended. The probation officer noted that while it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/993050P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that they were actually innocent of carrying a firearm during and in relation to their drug trafficking conspiracy. I. Background All four defendants pleaded guilty to numerous cocaine and cocaine base trafficking offenses for which they were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 210 months to 360 months. Each of the defendants also pleaded guilty to the crime of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking conspiracy for which they each were sentenced to an additional five year consecutive sentence. The defendants in this case failed to establish cause and prejudice because their Bailey based argument could have been raised at the time of the guilty pleas. 208 F.3d at 685 (explaining that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/003710P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sianis was sitting outside the residence when agents arrived. Asserting that the evidence was obtained through improper questioning and through other conduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Sianis stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/023340p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence argues that photographic arrays shown to government witnesses were unduly suggestive. That the evidence was insufficient to prove the premeditation required for first degree murder. Lawrence argues that the government failed to establish that the weapon involved was not an antique and therefore not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-4153.htm">03-4153 -- U.S. V. ROGERS -- 06/15/2004<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong></center> <p> The district court concluded that the United States was not entitled to an 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/99-1060.htm">99-1060 -- U.S. V. SHULER -- 07/06/1999<BR></A><BR> It was stipulated in the district court that the stolen firearms were simply carried out of the store during the robbery and were not armed with ammunition. A superceding indictment was returned in the District of Colorado charging Defendants with five criminal counts stemming from the armed robbery. The district court concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-6393.htm">96-6393 -- U.S. V. JOHNSON -- 12/16/1997<BR></A><BR> Remand with instructions to vacate Johnson's conviction for being an unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Johnson was convicted of a felony in Wichita County. Johnson was seen regularly in possession of the handgun. <p> On October 18. Who is Caucasian. Who is African American. Who is also an African American. Sparks did not know Watkins was going to make a controlled purchase. A chemist at the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation confirmed the substance was cocaine. He did not determine whether it was cocaine hydrochloride or cocaine base. <p> Later that same evening. Johnson was socializing with several other people at Diggs' mother's house when Sandra Mims arrived and informed them she had argued with Johnny Green and he pulled a knife on her. They first went to Ruby's Cafe but Green was not there. Franklin noticed Johnson's handgun was lodged between the hood of the car and the windshield so he reached his hand out the window and grabbed the gun. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/02-3094a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-2301.htm">97-2301 -- U.S. V. WISEMAN -- 04/05/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> This is a direct appeal from convictions and a sentence in a criminal case. Our jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/99-4106.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RICE (6/16/2000, NO. 99-4106)<BR></A><BR> His most persuasive argument is that the district court erred in excluding evidence supporting a defense of justification. We affirm on the ground that the facts proffered were insufficient to establish a justification defense.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/99-4106.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RICE (6/16/2000, NO. 99-4106)<BR></A><BR> His most persuasive argument is that the district court erred in excluding evidence supporting a defense of justification. We affirm on the ground that the facts proffered were insufficient to establish a justification defense.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3437.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sanchez Garcia was charged in a five count Superceding Indictment with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. In violation of 18 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was convicted on the remaining four counts. The motion was denied and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totaling 152 months. Because Sanchez Garcia's family did not have a car. It was registered in her name. Were the primary drivers. There was conflicting testimony about who else drove the car and how frequently. Was Ketner. She also testified that because Sanchez Garcia was an illegal alien. He was careful to only drive legally registered cars. The green Intrepid was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3172_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Humphreys was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal Humphreys challenges his conviction and sentence on three grounds and alleges that: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that the firearm he possessed had traveled in interstate commerce. (3) the district court relied on inadequate evidence in ruling that one of his prior 2 No. 05 3172 convictions was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022668P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronnie Ladale Anderson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 100 months imprisonment. Bald trucker was stopped on the shoulder of eastbound Interstate 80. The witnesses varied in their descriptions of what he was doing with the gun. Some said he was walking towards another stopped truck. Some said he was waving the gun. The witnesses' descriptions of the truck were the same. They offered slightly different descriptions of what was written on the trailer. Called 911 and told the dispatcher a black trucker had been on the radio threatening a female trucker who was also driving through the Des Moines area. Schmidt told the dispatcher the suspect threatened Schmidt and others and was driving eastbound on Interstate 80. 2 called back a second time and told the dispatchers the suspect was back on the road. The caller was talking to the suspect on the radio at the same time he was on the phone to the dispatcher. Officers from three police departments were dispatched to the area and in short order spotted a truck with a maroon cab pulling a white trailer with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1210_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Birk argues that he was denied a fair trial and due process of law when the government's witness testified that Birk had a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-3022a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0025n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was returned on May 28. Was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Defendant Sorrells was charged with one count of substantive drug trafficking and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. He was sentenced to 144 months of incarceration (84 months on the conspiracy charge followed by the mandatory minimum of 60 months on the firearms charge) and four years of supervised release. 2 No. 04 5818/6019 United States v. Ngamwuttibal After a jury returned a guilty verdict on all three counts in which he was charged. The effective range was 195 to 228 months of imprisonment. Ngamwuttibal The agreement we've had is that we are withdrawing our first objection regarding drug quantity amounts. The court granted the motion: [T]he Court will grant the government's motion. The Court will depart downward three levels in the defendant's case. That is the way the Court does it most often. What the Court does is to try to figure out where the original guideline range would be if there had been no mandatory sentence but looking at the sentencing guidelines as a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mitchell</SPAN> was on the brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011952P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller and Jackson broke into an apartment looking for drug money they believed was there. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 3 was a drug dealer. Entered the room they were in. Miller pointed the gun at him and demanded to know who he was. Who was driving. This argument was witnessed by a local resident. Who called 911 and described the situation as it was happening. He reported to the 911 operator that the man with the gun was wearing a dark. Who was in the front passenger seat. Miller stated that Willis was not even in the car when the shooting took place and that Jackson shot Phillips while the car was stopped and as Miller was about to get into the driver's seat. Was lying in the passenger seat. As Miller and Jackson were trying to push the car free. Jackson was wearing a dark. After learning that he was being sought. Jackson was arrested in Detroit in February 2000 on an unrelated offense. 4 Both Jackson and Miller were indicted on seven drug related charges. Miller was indicted on a count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0409p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Farrow raises four arguments on appeal: (1) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Walker and Farrow were wed on May 28. Who was born on February 8. Shortly before Farrow's 90 day visitation period was set to expire. He and Walker obtained paperwork from the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8015.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mozee's guidelines range was enhanced by four offense levels. Mozee's guidelines range was 100 to 120 months and sentenced him to 120 months incarceration. He also argues his Sixth Amendment rights were violated pursuant to Blakely v. I It is undisputed that on July 14. Mozee was discharged. It is further undisputed that the bullet expelled from the discharge struck Mr. The factual circumstances leading up to and resulting in the shooting are in dispute. Of particular significance is the <hr> question of whether the shooting was accidental or intentional in nature. That the shooting was intentional. The Cheyenne Police Department (CPD) was notified that Ms. Officer Radomicki and Detective Weese were the initial CPD investigating officers dispatched to the hospital. The presence of which is one method of determining whether the gunshot occurred at close range. Mozee's first version of events was nearly identical to the second story Ms. Ferguson while they were arguing in their home. While he was in the process of placing the gun in the waistband of his pants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0552n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> During the period when he was under indictment for a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment greater than one year and following his conviction for that crime. Comrie was charged with conspiracy to make false statements in connection with the acquisition of firearms by Simpson and Dyson and conspiracy to knowingly dispose of and transfer possession of firearms from Simpson while Comrie was under indictment for. Comrie was also charged with two counts of causing a false statement to be made to a firearms The Honorable William Stafford. Comrie was further charged with two counts of knowingly possessing firearms while convicted of a felony crime. Comrie asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. He also claims that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain his conviction for two counts of causing false statements to be made to a firearms dealer in connection with a firearms purchase. After each sale was completed. Which asked whether Simpson was the actual buyer of the purchased firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-16067.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WOODRUFF (7/3/2002, NO. 01-16067)<BR></A><BR> Woodruff argues that (1) the indictment's Hobbs Act charges were defective because they failed to allege criminal intent. (2) there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between the robberies and interstate commerce to warrant federal jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act. (3) there was insufficient evidence to prove that the weapon used during the robberies was in fact a firearm capable of expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. The district court erred by applying the 25 year statutory minimum under § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) because the indictment failed to allege that it was a second or subsequent conviction under § 924(c).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-5219.htm">01-5219 -- U.S. V. ROWE -- 08/21/2002<BR></A><BR> We have determined to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral <p> argument. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant contends that (1) his two convictions under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-16067.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WOODRUFF (7/3/2002, NO. 01-16067)<BR></A><BR> Woodruff argues that (1) the indictment's Hobbs Act charges were defective because they failed to allege criminal intent. (2) there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between the robberies and interstate commerce to warrant federal jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act. (3) there was insufficient evidence to prove that the weapon used during the robberies was in fact a firearm capable of expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. The district court erred by applying the 25 year statutory minimum under § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) because the indictment failed to allege that it was a second or subsequent conviction under § 924(c).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-1168.htm">01-1168 -- U.S. V. BURGESS -- 02/06/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Dwayne Lamont Burgess pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/024084P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kamil Johnson were convicted of murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to imprisonment for life without release. Was insufficient to support their convictions. They also contend that the statute under which they were convicted. Is unconstitutional because it overreaches Congress's power under the 2 Commerce Clause. Four year old Davisha BrantleyGillum was returning home from a day at a neighborhood festival. Was associated with a gang called the Bogus Boys. Some men standing behind a fence at the edge of the Amoco property began shooting into the car where Davisha was sitting. Police were unable to solve the crime until August 23. Williams was the leader of the St. Was also arrested and indicted. McGruder as the people who were involved in the Davisha Gillum case. Harut was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering. Johnson and McGruder were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1959. The state law alleged to have been violated was Minn. Which provides: Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life: (1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/032043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Now before this court is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court denying Pomeroy's motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. He is entitled to qualified immunity. We have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. The following summary of the facts is based upon plaintiff's allegations. While plaintiff and Parks were preparing to leave Sunsets. Is it physical? Is it physical? My girls are here. We are. This is the first time I've seen him this bad. Gottstein was the first to respond by radio. Male is [drunk]. The dispatcher reiterated the following information to the officers: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6127.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first is the district court's dismissal of one count of an indictment at <hr> a pretrial suppression hearing. The second is the district court's decision to exclude 680.4 grams of methamphetamine from the drug quantity calculation at sentencing. I. Background Jared Lee Todd came to the attention of Detective Kenneth Russell Park while Detective Park was investigating the Universal Aryan Brotherhood's connection to a methamphetamine laboratory and a shooting that occurred in March 2004. Todd was being supplied methamphetamine by Greg Minard. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E093E5F1699E805688256E04006FC524/$file/0335054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was filed on March 6. Riley was convicted in Washington state court of assault and of carrying a short firearm. His direct appeals and his personal restraint petition in Washington state court were to no avail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and reverse the judgment of the district court. Riley saw Gustavo Jaramillo and Aaron Calloway drive up in a car to an apartment complex where Riley was visiting a friend. Riley was informed that the car used by Jaramillo and Calloway was for sale. Was unsuccessful. Riley asked if Jaramillo and Calloway were in a gang. Jaramillo said they were. Jaramillo told Riley he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-2338.htm">02-2338 -- U.S. V. NAVA-SOTELO -- 12/31/2003<BR></A><BR> Adalberto Nava Sotelo was convicted for the use and carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53A145912FACC17088256E3D005D93E0/$file/0230184.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Daychild and Neiss were both convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Montana of conspiracy to possess and/or distribute marijuana. Neiss was also found guilty of unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute an additional stash of marijuana. Daychild was sentenced to thirty three months' imprisonment and Neiss to forty four months' imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Noticed James Daychild and Patrick Neiss </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1719.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Maine in 1994 that netted the robbers approximately $520 was prosecuted federally. Defendant Dennis Sullivan was sentenced for the crime to spend almost the next thirty years of his life in prison. Defendant Thomas Platt was sentenced to more than thirty years. Ably arguing that the prosecutor was overly zealous. The misstep was harmless error. The Inn's night manager was faced with the shotgun by a man who jumped over the countertop and told the manager to look straight ahead and not at him. He did get a good enough look to testify that the robber was a man of medium build. The robber with the gun asked the manager where the Inn's money was. The manager told him it was in a drawer. In the car were the defendants and two companions. Was Platt's girlfriend. 4 4 The scheme unravelled. Hearing the police were looking to question them. When arrest warrants were issued. Sullivan and Platt were charged with conspiracy to obstruct commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951. Platt and Sullivan were each charged individually with possession of a firearm not registered to them in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) and 5871. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0817n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. He and Villarreal were conducting surveillance of the lounge's parking lot from their squad car. At approximately 2:20 a.m. the officers heard </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/041849P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Light contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that he possessed the gun and that the district court1 denied his right to self representation. Was unconstitutional. Officer Davis observed that Light was holding his midsection as though he were cradling something. After Light was subdued. Bystanders later helped police recover hundreds of dollars in cash discarded by Light during the pursuit. 2 As Light was being subdued. Light was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1). Light contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that he possessed the gun and that the district court denied his right to self representation. Light also raises for the first time on appeal the argument that he was sentenced unconstitutionally under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E702284B7A6AEB0888256E5A00707A84/$file/9910501.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert contends that the district court improperly increased his base offense level for possession of a dangerous weapon when he was already subject to the fiveyear mandatory minimum consecutive prison sentence for possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We hold that it is improper to apply any guidelines weapons enhancement for an underlying offense even where. Possessed a firearm different from the one for which the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity when determining his base offense level and that his guilty plea was involuntary because of the filing of a superseding indictment. The Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-2171.htm">99-2171 -- U.S. V. CONCHA -- 12/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/023571p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A search warrant was obtained and executed in March 1999. A key to the store was found in Sparrow's pocket. He was the only tenant on the lease. He argues that the facts established in the plea agreement and hearing were insufficient to sustain his § 924(c) conviction. He contends it was error for counsel to permit him to plead guilty to this count. Whether Sparrow's possession of a firearm was in furtherance of his drug trafficking activities. Is a sufficiency of the evidence question. Fifty seven small packets of marijuana and a scale above the steps leading to the cellar. 2 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. 2 314 F.3d 163. Analysis Sparrow argues that possession of the loaded pistol was not in furtherance of his drug trafficking crimes because an insufficient factual nexus exists between the two. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2069.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1993 is amended as follows: On page 3. Was on brief for the United States. Both cars were driven back toward the bank. There was evidence that the driver and another man had abandoned the Chevrolet (which was stolen) around 3:30 p.m. and switched to another car. The trial judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a genuine firearm was carried during the robbery. Kirvan's first argument on appeal is that a statement made by the prosecutor during summation was improper. The statement concerned Mohan's ability to identify the driver of the oncoming Chevrolet where the distance between Mohan's car and the other car was approximately 3 to 4 feet and both cars were travelling in opposite directions between 30 and 35 miles per hour. I want you to put yourselves in the place that [Mohan] was in. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041083p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clarence Shambry was found guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 92 months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Arguing that it was obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Camden Police Officers Gramaglia and Kemp were dispersing a crowd that had formed at Morton and Norris Streets in Camden. Officer Gramaglia was able to view the driver through the windshield and recognized him as someone he had seen in the area while on previous patrols. Officers Gramaglia and Gonzalez were patrolling a high crime area. A few blocks away from where the vehicle that struck Officer Gramaglia was abandoned by its occupants. Shambry was transported to police headquarters and charged with illegal possession of a handgun and the September 29 aggravated assault. Shambry argued that its seizure was the result of an unconstitutional search and seizure insofar as Officer Gramaglia had no reasonable suspicion to conduct a frisk under Terry v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98017B33493E39CE882571FD00810C8D/$file/0430397.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm because consent to search was not voluntary. He also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We conclude that the search was conducted pursuant to a valid consent. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Rodriquez possessed the firearm. Was placed on a term of community supervision. He was subsequently placed on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68C134DA77CC62BE88256A090060AC41/$file/9910501.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert contends that the district court improperly increased his base offense level for possession of a dangerous weapon when he was already subject to the fiveyear mandatory minimum consecutive prison sentence for possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We hold that it is improper to apply any guidelines weapons enhancement for an underlying offense even where. Possessed a firearm different from the one for which the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity when determining his base offense level and that his guilty plea was involuntary because of the filing of a superseding indictment. The Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/031162P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 3) one of the three prior convictions used to trigger armed career criminal status should not have counted as a violent felony. 4) the federal firearm statutes are unconstitutional. Explaining it block by block as was his habit. Ward told him he was free to go but asked if he had anything illegal in the vehicle. Trooper Ward asked again whether there was anything illegal in the vehicle. Menteer said there was a gun under the front seat. After determining Menteer was a convicted felon. The total time of the stop and detention prior to arrest was fifteen to twenty five minutes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether the government presented sufficient evidence to allow <hr> the jury to conclude that Norman constructively possessed the firearm found in the glove compartment of his car. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Which was occupied by Marcell Jeron Norman. Norman's actions were sufficiently odd that she drew her weapon and told Norman to get back into the car and turn off the engine. Officer Fees noticed that the glove compartment was locked. Norman stated that he did not have a key to the glove compartment. (Id. at 24Ä25) (1) The glove compartment was apparently easily opened without a key. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4DB77D49607482588256E010072AA63/$file/0216829.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shaw was convicted in a California state court on multiple counts of assault. Shaw was sentenced to 136 months in prison. Was convicted on the same counts. Shaw asserts that his due process rights were violated by the state prosecutor's advancement of factually inconsistent arguments at the two trials. His habeas petition was denied by the district court on August 5. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We now conclude that the state court decision upholding Shaw's conviction was neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-5056.htm">97-5056 -- U.S. V. FISHER -- 12/23/1997<BR></A><BR> Who was indicted along with four others. Including losses for which he was not responsible. We affirm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8789.man.html">UNITED STATES V. LEONARD (4/8/1998, NO. 96-8789)<BR></A><BR> The defendants were in a Chevrolet Caprice station wagon traveling north on I 75 through Lowndes County. Peterson was driving. Moore was in the front passenger seat and Leonard was in the back seat. Was the owner of the car. Moore admitted ownership of the vehicle but stated that he did not have any registration. Peterson first told Deputy Sellers that the defendants were traveling from Orlando. Deputy Sellars then indicated that Moore did not have to give permission to search. The defendants were then arrested.</P> <P> A grand jury returned a five count indictment against the defendants. Which is using and carrying a firearm. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6225.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Not the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement which was based on his prior convictions. The government is not required to charge in an indictment or prove to a jury either: 1) the existence of prior convictions. Wilson was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Other than to state that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8789.man.html">UNITED STATES V. LEONARD (4/8/1998, NO. 96-8789)<BR></A><BR> The defendants were in a Chevrolet Caprice station wagon traveling north on I 75 through Lowndes County. Peterson was driving. Moore was in the front passenger seat and Leonard was in the back seat. Was the owner of the car. Moore admitted ownership of the vehicle but stated that he did not have any registration. Peterson first told Deputy Sellers that the defendants were traveling from Orlando. Deputy Sellars then indicated that Moore did not have to give permission to search. The defendants were then arrested.</P> <P> A grand jury returned a five count indictment against the defendants. Which is using and carrying a firearm. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-7032.htm">97-7032 -- U.S. V. WOODLEE -- 02/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Contending: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because we believe there is sufficient evidence to support the Woodlees' convictions and the court did not err during trial or sentencing of any of the defendants. Were drinking and shooting pool. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/031287p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that his offense level was improperly adjusted upward under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) as that provision was interpreted in United States v. Because we hold that his offense level was correctly determined. I. Lloyd was alleged to be part of a drug ring headed by Armando Spataro. Spataro was involved in a dispute with a man named Thomas Learn. It was decided that a bomb should be built and placed under the fuel tank of Learn's truck. Lloyd was later paid $100 for this act. As Learn was about to enter the truck. The authorities concluded that the bomb was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962544P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the Guidelines bar the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement as double counting when a defendant is convicted of violating § 924(c). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511273.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Authorities received a 911 call from a person identifying himself as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2528.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Attorney was on brief. Is based on an erroneous finding that Currier was victimized by ineffective assistance of counsel during the bench trial leading to the conviction. A team of federal and state law enforcement agents gathered outside a basement apartment where Currier was then residing in order to execute a search warrant. Forcibly entered the apartment while continuing to shout that they were police officers. His initial kick was met with resistance and was unsuccessful. A naked Currier had assumed a shooter's stance and was pointing a revolver directly at him. Who was wearing a bullet proof vest which prominently displayed his state police badge. Currier obeyed and was arrested. Wesson .357 magnum loaded with hollow point ammunition.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/953543P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Committed these The district court sentenced him to one year The judgment included a special hunting in violation of a condition of probation is not a lawful sporting offenses by unlawfully killing. Selling large numbers of protected migratory birds. in prison and three years of probation. on probation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0405n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The vehicle's tags were falling off. Police discovered that the tags were registered to a 1987 The Honorable Harold A. Was soon apprehended. The facts of which are outlined below. As the club was closing. Ken was with two other males whom Shontell identified at trial as Conner and Clifton Butler. She further testified that she was sitting in the front passenger seat. Conner was sitting in the back behind her. Ken was driving. Butler was sitting behind the driver. She further testified that Butler did not have a gun and did not respond to Ken's statement. Counts 3 and 4 were renumbered Counts 1 and 2 for trial purposes. They continue to be referred to as Counts 3 and 4. 2 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90B5FFB18A092A6F88256DDD000000FE/$file/0210318.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stewart believed the kits were legal to sell because the receivers on the rifles had not yet been completely machined and the rifles were thus not usable as firearms. Stewart was charged and convicted of one count of felony UNITED STATES v. No charges were brought against Stewart regarding the advertised parts kits that were initially the subject of the investigation. Claiming that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is an invalid exercise of Congress's commerce power and violates the Second Amendment. Notably absent from this provision is any jurisdictional requirement that the machinegun has traveled in or substantially affected interstate commerce. Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he makes a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3180.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams' guideline range was enhanced by two offense levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) on the basis of the district court's finding. Williams' guideline range was 70 to 87 months and sentenced him to 70 months incarceration. Williams advances two theories to support his contention that he was erroneously sentenced. He first claims the record evidence is insufficient to support increasing his sentence two offense levels for possession of a firearm pursuant to 2D1.1(b)(1). Williams was charged in a three count indictment on September 19. A confidential informant (CI) who was working with officers of the Shawnee County Sheriff's Department contacted the defendant by telephone. The rocks were later tested by the DEA and found to contain cocaine base. Was .97 grams. A digital scale and a loaded 9mm Sig Sauer pistol were also found in Mr. He admitted possession but argued that the enhancement did not apply because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/062795P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\7-20\06-2795, 07-1442 AWAD V. GONZALES OPN .WPD<BR></A><BR> Was found to be removable by an immigration judge (IJ) after he was convicted of a misdemeanor firearm offense. Was stopped by a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources officer in November 2005 while driving his all terrain vehicle. Awad was charged with being removable under § 237(a)(2)(C) of the INA.3 This section provides for the removal of any alien who has been convicted under any law of. Concluding that the conviction under Minnesota Statute § 97B.045 was a conviction covered by INA § 237(a)(2)(C). Although both the 2003 and 2005 convictions were considered by the IJ in finding Awad removable. The BIA concluded that the sporting exception was limited to the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5112.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Defendant was a regular customer. A form necessary to verify the purchaser's identity and determine if the purchaser is legally allowed to possess a firearm. Sanchez informed Defendant his application was denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/96-6042.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. GREEN<BR></A><BR> Vincent Berry and William Leroy Harding were jointly charged in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma with various criminal acts arising out of two robberies. All three were convicted on all counts wherein they were charged. All were sentenced to imprisonment. Green (No. 96 6042) and Berry (No. 96 6043) have appealed their respective convictions and sentences. Their separate appeals were companioned for purposes of briefing and oral argument. All three appeals were set for oral argument before this panel of the court. The panel has now determined that these three appeals should be consolidated for disposition in one opinion since they are interrelated and there is. Berry and Harding were charged with conspiring from December 23. Were charged with robbery by force. They were also charged with putting in jeopardy the life of Allison Ammer by the use of a firearm. Were charged with robbery by force. They were also charged with putting in jeopardy the lives of Paula Enix and Julie Cooper by the use of a firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4712ECCB93C31FEE88256E600076C707/$file/0310152.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Batterjee is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. He was admitted into the United States on a non immigrant student visa in 1992 to study at Arizona State University. Batterjee purchased the firearm and ammunition that are the subject of his convictions. He was lawfully present in the United States on a non immigrant H 1 visa.1 On April 18. Shooting Star is a federal firearms licensee. That designation permits Shooting Star to sell firearms and imposes on it the responsibility of ensuring that customers are legally authorized to purchase firearms. Batterjee could not obtain the pistol directly from Springfield Armory because it is not a federal firearms licensee. BATTERJEE 3631 arranged to have the pistol delivered to Shooting Star to facilitate the transfer of the pistol and complete the federallymandated paperwork and background check. He was required to comply with the provisions of § 922(s)(1)(A)(i)(I) which requires an individual seeking to possess firearms to provide a statement to a federal firearms licensee containing identification information and a certification that the individual is not prohibited from possessing firearms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1670.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1737.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cicilline was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Benevides was convicted of conspiracy to transfer a firearm illegally. Defendant was employed at Handy and Harmon Jewelry Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/001774.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of six counts of armed robbery. Brown was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Police Officer Michael Hughes of the Camden Police Department was dispatched to the 700 block of Clinton Str eet in Camden to investigate a missing juvenile report. While he was speaking to a woman on the street about the juvenile. They were real excited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1729.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. This error was harmless. The officers learned he was driving with a suspended license. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04ED5E52EF29C14588256C3E00588402/$file/0117010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Hawkins *Ernie Roe is substituted as Warden. Bill Lockyer is substituted as the Attorney General of the State of California. Were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Therefore should have been suppressed. Was met by Leon Danker. Later saw that the victim's head was bleeding. Who was homeless. Was there. Danker's campsite was located under a tree and was covered by bushes. Officer Haynes was soon after joined by Officer Hill and a police dog. Were unable to find Allen or the gun. An open twelve pack of beer was found on the ground near where Allen was arrested. After Allen was identified by Danker. Officer Martin stated to Allen that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3709_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Andre Bennett was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The charges stem from a fight Bennett was involved in on November 26. Confronted Dwayne Adams as Adams was walking his two pit bulls. Who was walking with Adams. He and Davis were walking the pit bulls when Foster approached and provoked a fist fight because Foster believed Adams had called him a snitch. Adams testified that Bennett pointed the gun to his face and told Adams he was going to shoot him. Adams's eye was severely swollen to the point where he could not see out of it. That same eye was blurry and he saw spots. There is a chance he might become blind in that eye. Ribs were bruised and swollen. Adams's appearance in the district court was procured by way of subpoena. He testified that if he had not been served with a No. 05 3709 3 subpoena he would not have attended the sentencing hearing. Included in the records was a nurse's report. Swelling was noted on Adams's left eye. A contusion was observed on his face. The CT Scan revealed a fracture at the base of his nasal bone and his right eye was swollen shut with extensive abrasions and a diffuse subcontusional hemorrhage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0546n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith also argues that he should have received a competency hearing. That his Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses was violated because he could not call a witness at his pretrial detention hearing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because the parties are familiar with the facts. Testified that he told Smith that it was Smith's choice whether to go through with the killing. The ATF agent then contacted Smith to arrange delivery of a gun for use in the killing and told Smith that there would be no harm if he were to call off the plan. Smith stated that there were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042469P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anthony Claybourne (Claybourne) was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Finding Claybourne was an armed career criminal. (3) the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) are unconstitutional. Who was the only person in the residence. Concealed inside the t shirt were an Intratec. Its magazine containing twenty nine rounds of ammunition.2 No identifiable prints were discovered on the firearm. The pistol functioned as a firearm on the day it was discovered. 2 2 The government charged Claybourne with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court allowed the government only to submit evidence that the firearm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D0ED7E05372772388256F40005E7598/$file/0250636.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Padilla argues that his motion for new trial should have been granted because. Because the Supreme Court has pending two appeals that are likely to shed light on Blakely's effect on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Nicholas Padilla was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Padilla's prior felony was a California state conviction in January 1997 for possession of cocaine for sale. The only disputed issue at trial was whether Padilla was in possession of the gun on January 30. Parga was the only one to see Padilla dispose of the gun. The first of those statements is challenged by Padilla in this appeal. Testified that the gun was his and that Padilla did not know that Villa had the gun when he got into Padilla's car. Villa also testified that both he and Padilla were members of the Cuatro Flats street gang. The second defense witness was Samantha Ramirez. Eagleson testified that it was his experience that gang members would not testify against one another. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FF1875F2B94A9868825712400784C59/$file/0410343.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> States that he has a gun but makes no reference to his willingness to use it is subject to a two level sentencing enhancement for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1931p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After our original opinion in this case was filed. The issue in this case is whether mere possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994008.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: Winston Mitchell was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). He also was convicted of possessing a silencer in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Mitchell was arrested for assaulting his wife. Mitchell was convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery. That same day a warrant was issued for Mitchell's arrest on stalking charges. Emerged from the Mitchell home to see what was going on. A device the government argues is a homemade silencer. He was sentenced to 48 months imprisonment. A. Mitchell first argues that § 924(a)(2) required the government to prove that Mitchell knew that possessing a firearm was illegal. 3 We disagree. The Supreme Court has noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0144p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was found guilty of seconddegree murder. He was sentenced to twenty five to seventy five years imprisonment for the murder conviction plus two years consecutive imprisonment for the felony firearm conviction. Which were denied. Which was denied. As were his subsequent state appeals. On appeal petitioner raises three issues: (1) whether petitioner was denied a fair trial due to the bias of the trial judge against defense counsel. (2) whether petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel where a critical defense witness was not called. Since there is grave doubt as to whether the prosecutorial misconduct created a substantial and injurious influence on the verdict. The error was not harmless. This Court said: It is true that the case against Boyle was relatively straightforward and strong. We are left with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1093.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> > </style> </head> <body> <p align=center> <a href=http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/nshelp.htm> <img src=/images/buttons/pacer/help.jpg border=0></a> <a href=http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/wp.opinions/95 1093.01A> <img src=/images/buttons/pacer/wp format.jpg border=0></a> </p> <pre> [This opinion is For Pubication as of October 21. Were on brief for appellee. Blais was arrested in Providence. Which was denied on October 12. The following facts could have been found by a reasonable jury. Whom he later learned was 2 Blais. Officers Dupuis and Paolino knocked on the door and announced that they were police officers. After which the apartment's occupant asked who was there. Officer Dupuis again stated that it was the police. Officer Dupuis stated that it was the police and that the occupant should open the door. His jury instructions and his conviction are unconstitutional. He argues that the district court erred by refusing to limit or identify which of Blais's prior convictions it would allow the government to introduce if he were to deny committing the present offense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610880.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On appeal he argues that (1) the drug quantity attributed to him at sentencing was derived from information he provided to the government as part of his plea agreement in violation of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8. This calculation was based on statements of codefendants Peter Hoang and Chieu Nguyen. There were also intercepts between Paul and Anthony Hoang wherein Paul expressed an intention to obtain the gun from the house and use it.1 The PSI listed the conversation as between Paul and Peter Hoang. The PSI set Pham's base offense level at 36 and added a two level enhancement for possession of a firearm because it was reasonably foreseeable that someone involved in the drug conspiracy would possess a firearm in furtherance of that conspiracy. Ultimately Pham's total offense level was 37. Pham's criminal history category was II. Pham objected that the drug weight attributed to him was derived from information he provided after entering his plea agreement. Was obtained either directly from him or from Nguyen. He objected that it was found in Paul Hoang's home. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We uphold the district court's acceptance of the appellant's guilty plea and dismiss the ineffective assistance of counsel claim without prejudice to the appellant's right to reassert it under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0222p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-3120a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the appellee. For the first time on appeal Drew argues that section 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under the Second and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We further conclude that the district court properly applied the Guidelines' cross reference provisions and that Drew's due process challenge to his conviction is meritless. Family counseling was also ordered and was scheduled to begin on November 19. Everyone was turning their back on him and he was contemplating suicide. While she was on the telephone with the emergency dispatcher. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0187n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Patterson argues that his federal due process rights were violated by an erroneous jury instruction in his Michigan state court trial. Patterson was sentenced to three days of incarceration on the misdemeanor conviction. Were trained bail bondsmen who were searching the streets for a man who jumped bail in Arizona and was believed to be in Detroit. Patterson had flagged down a Detroit police officer earlier in the evening to advise local law enforcement that he and Fawcett were in the community actively looking for their Arizona fugitive. Where the fugitive was believed to be. The men shouted that they were Detroit police officers. The judge instructed as follows: The Defendants are also charged with the separate crime of Possessing a Firearm at the time that they committed. The question is whether or not we can still find the defendant. The jury did not have to convict Patterson of an underlying felony in order to convict him of felony firearm. I might have thrown you off a little bit. You have the instructions also in there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991530.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue presented in this appeal is the difficult question of who must bear the burden of persuasion when a criminal defendant raises a justification defense to the federal charge of being a felon in possession of afirearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order of conviction and sentence. I. Facts and Procedural History Reginald Dodd was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The only question at trial was whether Dodd was justified in possessing the gun for the purpose of preventing harm to others. The justification defense in our court has four elements: (1) that the defendant or someone else was under unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury. (4) that there was a direct causal relationship between the criminal act and the avoidance of the threatened harm. That Dodd had picked it up in order to keep it out of the hands of a group of young children who were coming down the street. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8382.man.html">BAZEMORE V. UNITED STATES (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8382)<BR></A><BR> We agree with the district court that Bazemore is not entitled to the relief he seeks because <EM>Bailey</EM> defendants may still be convicted under section 924(c) if they aided and abetted a co defendant who carried a gun.</P> <P> On October 22. Bazemore knew that his passenger was carrying a weapon. As Bazemore was bringing the marijuana back to his van. All three conspirators were arrested by law enforcement officers.</P> <P> As a prisoner bringing a post conviction collateral attack on a guilty plea. The Court made clear that its decision was intended to give new life to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051367np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reed was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to a 78 month custodial term to be followed by a three year term of supervised release. We will affirm.1 II. Who was wearing a beige coat. Officer Kavals apprehended the person who fled from the front passenger seat of the The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The police later identified the gun as a loaded Ruger semi automatic pistol but they were unable to detect any fingerprints on the gun. There were. Prints on the magazine but they were not those of the car driver. Although Reed was not wearing a beige coat at the time of his apprehension. Reed testified that he was in the Ford Focus with Hughey. At the time of the incident because Hughey was a jitney driver. Hughey 3 Reed does not contest that he was a convicted felon. 3 sped up when the police attempted to stop the car. Reed further testified that he became nervous because Hughey was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8382.man.html">BAZEMORE V. UNITED STATES (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8382)<BR></A><BR> We agree with the district court that Bazemore is not entitled to the relief he seeks because <EM>Bailey</EM> defendants may still be convicted under section 924(c) if they aided and abetted a co defendant who carried a gun.</P> <P> On October 22. Bazemore knew that his passenger was carrying a weapon. As Bazemore was bringing the marijuana back to his van. All three conspirators were arrested by law enforcement officers.</P> <P> As a prisoner bringing a post conviction collateral attack on a guilty plea. The Court made clear that its decision was intended to give new life to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-3274.htm">96-3274 -- U.S. V. BOLDEN -- 12/30/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/93-8168.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. FARRIS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Agents announced he was under arrest. He was arrested. The cocaine was retrieved.<p> The Toyota was driven out of the motel lot but was pulled over by ATF agents. All three occupants were arrested and given <i>Miranda</i> warnings.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0332n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They ran to an adjacent restaurant where Gibson was waiting in a green Chevy Trailblazer. The Trailblazer's license plate number was traced to Gibson. 770 that was traced to the robbed bank. When she asked him if the money was intended to keep her quiet. The gun was black with vent holes in the barrel. Sykes told him it was too late to change their plans. Throwing away the one he thought was untraceable. Gibson was paid $40. Gibson left the state and shortly after was arrested by the FBI. Gibson was placed in the same holding cell as Johnson. Johnson told him he was aware that Gibson had been talking to the FBI and threatened that he (Johnson) carried a gun and Gibson should know what would happen No. 04 2371 5 if he testified. He claimed that only he and Brian Gibson were involved in the bank robbery. The court stated that if the guidelines were not in place. It would have sentenced Johnson to a total of 180 months. In response to a question about whether he might have any bias against a witness who cooperated with the government. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-6276.htm">96-6276 -- U.S. V. CARTER -- 11/25/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DED11001AF5063188257106005B4715/$file/0410681.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant. Was on the brief. Circuit Judge: This case requires us to consider whether the emergency doctrine or implied consent can support a warrantless search of a home on suspicion that a 9 1 1 caller or lurking predator was inside. That he was wounded and in pain. The transcript of the first call shows that the Fire Dispatcher and the SSO Dispatcher were confused as to whether the caller had been shot. After Russell's call was disconnected. Russell explained that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014869.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILLIAMS Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Lloyd Anthonie Williams appeals from the sentence imposed after he was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. Two drug trafficking counts were dismissed by the government. Williams was convicted. We affirmed his conviction but vacated the sentence because Williams was not eligible for sentencing as a career offender. Williams contends that he is not eligible for sentencing under the ACCA because the two prior drug related convictions upon which the district court relied do not qualify as serious drug offenses under the ACCA.1 The ACCA defines a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0302p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Aubrey Shante Amos was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Defense counsel conceded that the prior convictions for reckless endangerment and for cocaine possession were predicate offenses under the ACCA. Are inherently dangerous and lack a useful purpose. Held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1008.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Klibaner & Sabino was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Is itself a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-4131.htm">99-4131 -- U.S. V. MOJICA -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR> Mojica's sentence are undisputed for purposes of our review. Mojica was convicted of several crimes associated with a domestic violence charge in the Utah state courts in February 1998. She threatened to turn him in to the police for violation of probation in the domestic violence case because the shotgun was in the house. Rios was not at home. Mojica in the parking lot of his apartment complex while he was carrying the unloaded shotgun and fifteen rounds of ammunition in the carrying case. <p> <center>APPLICABLE LAW</center> <p> In September 1996. 922(g) was amended to make individuals who had . The applicable Sentencing Guidelines were amended effective November 1. Mojica was sentenced at base offense level 12 pursuant to a two point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. <em>See</em> U.S.S.G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4240_049.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the gun should have been suppressed and that the court committed plain error when it instructed the jury regarding his two prior felony convictions. Order a limited remand to determine whether the court would have 2 No. 04 4240 given Drake the same sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime. Reporting that two groups four black men in a Cadillac and two women in a LeSabre were involved in a disturbance and that each group had a gun. Who used a cellular telephone and was watching the events develop from a nearby car. Detective Chad Wagner and Trainee Officer Jessica Melzoni were dispatched to the scene. The transcript of the 911 call shows that the caller was then asked her name. My name is Linda Williams . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/051013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was registered to Evans's girlfriend. Noticed screws missing underneath where a radio or CD player ordinarily is in the front center console. Finding it uncharacteristic to have missing screws in that area of the vehicle. Constructive possession requires that the defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033376P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the district court1 denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an inventory search of the vehicle that he was driving. Kanatzar contends that his fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches was violated when the police impounded a vehicle that he was driving and conducted an inventory search. Police officers were on routine patrol in an unmarked police car when the driver of a Chevrolet Caprice (later identified as Mr. Which he was unable to produce. Kanatzar to step out of the vehicle and placed him under arrest for an illegal lane change and failure to have his driver's license. Kanatzar was from out of state and was under arrest and going to jail where he would be required to post bond. The passenger did not have a valid driver's license. The vehicle was parked in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-3379.htm">99-3379 -- U.S. V. TISDALE -- 04/16/2001<BR></A><BR> Wichita police officers were dispatched to the scene of an attempted burglary/robbery at 1645 North Hydraulic. Tisdale lying on the ground between the two residences located at 1645 North Hydraulic and 1651 North Hydraulic.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/93-8168.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. FARRIS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Agents announced he was under arrest. He was arrested. The cocaine was retrieved.<p> The Toyota was driven out of the motel lot but was pulled over by ATF agents. All three occupants were arrested and given <i>Miranda</i> warnings.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/044156P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anthony Donnelle Brown was found guilty by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. He asked Bankhead if he could come over to her apartment to talk and have sexual relations. He was talking on his cellular telephone with his current girlfriend. While Brown was watching television. The 911 operator called back and asked if there was an emergency. Bankhead told the operator that Brown was in her apartment with a gun and that she wanted him to leave. On the living room table. 2 Officers from the Minneapolis Police Department arrived at the apartment while Bankhead was still on the phone with the 911 operator. The operator informed the police that Bankhead was moving around the apartment and that there was a man sitting on a couch in the living room with a gun in front of him. The gun was on the table in the living room immediately in front of where Brown had been sitting when officers entered the apartment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0462n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the district court did not commit plain error in imposing this sentence and because the sentence was reasonable. Bryan Oglesby then approached one of the tellers who was lying on the floor and demanded the keys to the vault. Another teller who was also on the floor. Oglesby grabbed her arm and pressed the gun he was carrying directly into her back as he escorted her to the vault area. Oglesby pressed the gun directly into the back of the teller's head as she opened the combination lock of the safe that was located inside the vault. Oglesby then emptied the money that was in the safe into a bag and ordered the teller back to the area where the other employees were still lying on the floor. As the teller responded that she was trying to comply. Defendant 2 grabbed the teller by the hair and the gun he was carrying discharged. The teller was injured with a gunshot wound to her head. When the supervisor indicated that she did not have the combination. As she was opening the vault. Who was in her office. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-8979.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MCALLISTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is the main issue presented in this appeal. We reject these claims also and affirm McAllister's conviction.<p> I.<p> <p> Eugene McAllister was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon. The government demonstrated that the gun was manufactured in California and was shipped to South Carolina in 1982. Testified that she had accompanied McAllister to the store and that it was she who had taken the gun home. Remained in possession of the gun until it was allegedly stolen within 7 10 days of purchase. This court will not address an issue not decided by the district court. Is at the discretion of the appellate court. <i>See Lattimore v. That the interstate commerce element is met by demonstrating a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6CA191A25F814EF788256E5A00707BCA/$file/0030214.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rousseau raises three issues on appeal: (1) he was arrested unconstitutionally because the police did not have probable cause for the arrests. (3) he was wrongfully convicted under section 922(g)(1) because the statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied in this case. Because each of Rousseau's arguments is without merit. The first was January 26. Who in fact was Rousseau. Who also had been at Long's apartment and who was standing in the vicinity of the vehicle when Trapp arrived. After Rousseau and Hutchinson were handcuffed. In his statement Rousseau denied knowing that there was a gun in the red sedan and stated that he had no idea who owned the weapon or what was its source. The officers then transported Rousseau to the Lane County Jail were he was booked for unlawful possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. There was testimony that the firearm had been manufactured in Spain and imported through New Jersey before it was taken to Oregon. The second offense was for events on August 13. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-8979.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MCALLISTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is the main issue presented in this appeal. We reject these claims also and affirm McAllister's conviction.<p> I.<p> <p> Eugene McAllister was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon. The government demonstrated that the gun was manufactured in California and was shipped to South Carolina in 1982. Testified that she had accompanied McAllister to the store and that it was she who had taken the gun home. Remained in possession of the gun until it was allegedly stolen within 7 10 days of purchase. This court will not address an issue not decided by the district court. Is at the discretion of the appellate court. <i>See Lattimore v. That the interstate commerce element is met by demonstrating a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114273.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson was convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Was sentenced to death on the murder conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2235.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief. P.A. was on brief. Plaintiff appellant Phillip Napier was shot by defendant appellee Ronald Ramsdell ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043472P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Earnest Jesse Richardson was convicted following a jury trial on two counts: being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 103 months imprisonment on each count. (2) claims his counsel was ineffective. Were patrolling a neighborhood in North Minneapolis. She was separated from Richardson by the car. Who was still sitting in the squad car. Was placed in the back of the crashed squad car. Richardson allegedly said without prompting that he was responsible for the drugs but not the gun. Indicating that he was responsible for the drugs. Charges were filed against Richardson in state court. Moved to have the subsequently discovered evidence and statements suppressed. Testified that he was a friend of Richardson's and that Richardson was a frequent guest at the house. The state district court concluded that Richardson was illegally 2 Miranda v. Richardson again moved to suppress the evidence and statements because he claimed his pre flight encounter with the police was an illegal seizure. He also argued that the federal court was bound by the state court's determination that he was illegally seized. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-7082.htm">97-7082 -- U.S. V. EMBERSON -- 01/06/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBD10A170152D64E88256A7E00008A47/$file/0030214.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rousseau raises three issues on appeal: (1) he was arrested unconstitutionally because the police did not have probable cause for the arrests. (3) he was wrongfully convicted under section 922(g)(1) because the statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied in this case. Because each of Rousseau's arguments is without merit. The first was January 26. Who in fact was Rousseau. Who also had been at Long's apartment and who was standing in the vicinity of the vehicle when Trapp arrived. After Rousseau and Hutchinson were handcuffed. In his statement Rousseau denied knowing that there was a gun in the red sedan and stated that he had no idea who owned the weapon or what was its source. The officers then transported Rousseau to the Lane County Jail were he was booked for unlawful possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. There was testimony that the firearm had been manufactured in Spain and imported through New Jersey before it was taken to Oregon. The second offense was for events on August 13. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0197n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A The first trial error Bowman raises concerns a question the prosecutor asked during Bowman's cross examination: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-6585.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. VINCENT<BR></A><BR> Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E).</P> <P> Vincent seeks a reversal of the court's sentencing decision because the victim of the robbery could not identify the object that was used to intimidate her. We must decide whether an enhancement is authorized pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) when the victim of a robbery was intimidated by the placing of a hidden object in her side. Notwithstanding the fact that the object was not brandished or displayed. She was pushed against a wall. Woods placed an object against her side and demanded that she give him the money she was carrying. Believed it was some type of weapon that was used to perpetrate a robbery. Thornton were arrested on the following day. They were indicted for violating section 2111. Vincent stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-6004.htm">99-6004 -- U.S. V. AQUILAR -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR> Factual Background</strong> <p> Aguilar was named in two counts of a four count indictment. Aguilar's co defendants were identified in the indictment as Modesto Sicairos. Patron Montano stated he did not know if he could obtain ten kilos but he was confident he could get five kilos. Several telephone calls were made between Patron Montano. The undercover officer but the parties were unable to agree on a location. Patron Montano told the confidential source the suppliers were angry and were leaving the residence. <p> During the course of the telephone calls between Patron Montano. A traffic stop was initiated and the officers observed the driver of the vehicle make furtive gestures toward the floorboard area. It was later determined that Aguilar's co defendant. Was the driver of the vehicle. An address book were also found in the vehicle and Sicairos was in possession of $1458 in U.S. currency. Aguilar admitted he knew there were drugs in the vehicle but denied any knowledge of the gun. <p> Count 1 of the indictment charged Aguilar with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3285.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCullough sought to submit to the jury an instruction that a recordkeeping offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(m) is a lesser included offense of § 922(b)(5). Because the district court 2 No. 02 3285 should have instructed the jury that § 922(m) is a lesserincluded offense of § 922(b)(5). Dean West was a regular customer at McCullough's shop. The first and most common way was that a customer with a firearm to sell would approach McCullough. There was also instance [sic] where the individual would come here. Is that correct? I was acting as. It was a. The deal was made and uh the guy couldn't wait around. Why did you not put these HM: It was less than twenty four hours. Any gun that comes in your store is required to be put on your books if you're selling it. I thought the twenty four hour thing was in there. . . . [y]ou didn't have to disclose those firearms in your books. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-9250.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-PEREZ (2/2/1999, NO. 96-9250)<BR></A><BR> Homero provided the agent with one half ounce of methamphetamine but was unable to deliver the marijuana. Maclavio was sitting in the passenger seat of the Escort. Homero walked over to the Escort and was handed a shoe box wrapped with duct tape through the driver's side window. As well as an employment authorization card issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2178.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Suchecki with whom Jennifer Petersen and Petersen & Suchecki were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The district court allowed the jury to use a government prepared transcript as an aid in listening to the tape while it was being played during trial. He was ultimately apprehended by a back up police officer who found him hiding in a nearby garage. While these events were unfolding. We are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024209.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is an appeal from a jury verdict in which the defendant was found guilty of two counts of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. The defendant was sentenced to 144 months imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.1 The firearm possession charge in count one occurred on September 17. The validity of that search and whether the defendant possessed the firearm is not at issue in this appeal. The recovery of the firearm on that day gave rise to certain statements alleged to have been made by the defendant after he was stopped which were subsequently introduced against him at trial. 2001 was an illegal Terry stop giving rise to fruit of the poisonous tree. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0183p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sanders's conviction is AFFIRMED but the case is REMANDED for re sentencing. Police officers Michael Brindisi and Paul Brown were on patrol at approximately 10:00 p.m. on December 20. The two men were approximately an arm's length from each other. Officer Brindisi noted that the driver was dressed all in black. Had braided hair and was wearing a skull cap. One round was chambered and four rounds were in the magazine. Sanders was handcuffed and transported to Officer Brindisi's patrol car. Several other notable pieces of evidence were introduced at trial. Officer Brindisi testified about certain items that were discovered in and taken from the Pontiac namely. Who was her neighbor at the time. Tobacco and Firearms testified for the United States that the Winchester .40 Smith and Wesson caliber ammunition that was found in the firearm that Sanders had allegedly dropped was manufactured by Winchester in Illinois and therefore traveled in interstate commerce. He also testified that the firearm itself was manufactured in Ohio and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-9250.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-PEREZ (2/2/1999, NO. 96-9250)<BR></A><BR> Homero provided the agent with one half ounce of methamphetamine but was unable to deliver the marijuana. Maclavio was sitting in the passenger seat of the Escort. Homero walked over to the Escort and was handed a shoe box wrapped with duct tape through the driver's side window. As well as an employment authorization card issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966585.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vincent seeks a reversal of the court's sentencing decision because the victim of the robbery could not identify the object that was used to intimidate her. We must decide whether an enhancement is authorized pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) when the victim of a robbery was intimidated by the placing of a hidden object in her side. Notwithstanding the fact that the object was not brandished or displayed. She was pushed against a wall. Woods placed an object against her side and demanded that she give him the money she was carrying. Believed it was some type of weapon that was used to perpetrate a robbery. Thornton were arrested on the following day. They were indicted for violating section 2111. Vincent stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8093.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> TACHA. Defendant Appellant Ron Alonzo Banks was convicted in the District Court of Wyoming of conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. The individuals were later <hr> determined to be Mr. The apartment was leased in Ms. Who was equipped with a wireless transmitter and pre recorded funds. State agents applied for and were granted a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-2090.htm">03-2090 -- U.S. V. BARELA -- 04/29/2004<BR></A><BR> (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6585.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. VINCENT<BR></A><BR> Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E).</P> <P> Vincent seeks a reversal of the court's sentencing decision because the victim of the robbery could not identify the object that was used to intimidate her. We must decide whether an enhancement is authorized pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) when the victim of a robbery was intimidated by the placing of a hidden object in her side. Notwithstanding the fact that the object was not brandished or displayed. She was pushed against a wall. Woods placed an object against her side and demanded that she give him the money she was carrying. Believed it was some type of weapon that was used to perpetrate a robbery. Thornton were arrested on the following day. They were indicted for violating section 2111. Vincent stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-4104.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GIBSON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Finding that public policy permits the stop and frisk of an individual when police have a partially corroborated anonymous tip that the individual has a firearm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/041007P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were dispatched to an apartment where Mr. Holmes and a gun were found after Brenda Williams (a sister of Mr. Sheila Perry) called 911 and reported that there was a disturbance at the apartment involving a person armed with a gun. The door to the apartment was wide open when the officers arrived. Perry were present in the apartment. The record is unclear as to what role. Holmes backed up to a wall and began to pull a hand from behind his back </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0723n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brian Herron was convicted by a jury of one count of attempted bank robbery. Herron was then sentenced to 420 months in prison. The teller asked to see the gun and Herron told her it was a Christmas joke and left the bank. Herron testified at trial that he was the man who attempted to rob the US Bank on December 23. The police were contacted by Gerald </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-4104.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GIBSON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Finding that public policy permits the stop and frisk of an individual when police have a partially corroborated anonymous tip that the individual has a firearm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3447.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mims was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Police Department was patrolling the area near Thirteenth and Quindaro Streets when he observed a speeding car. Mims was then </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0596n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) there was insufficient evidence that he constructively possessed the firearm. One of whom was on a bicycle. Were talking to one another and looking down at their hands. Cole later testified that the men's conduct was consistent with a narcotics transaction. It became clear to Cole that the object was a pistol. That it was under the front tire of the van. Then notified dispatch by his car radio that he was pursuing a suspect who had abandoned a weapon. Cole testified that there was no one else in the area of the parking lot. Which recited that Collins was approached by an unknown male who was trying to sell a handgun. No fingerprints were recovered from the firearm. An indictment was issued that charged Collins with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Based on the fact that her son was incarcerated. Based on the juror's statement that his nephew was treated unfairly in a federal prosecution. No other jurors were challenged or stricken for cause. Thirty two jurors were randomly selected. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0775n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of bank robbery. Bank employees could not identify Bowlson because he was wearing a ski mask over his face. At about the time Bowlson was leaving the bank. While Amont Jefferson and Marco Houston were supposed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1563.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The six defendants in this case were convicted on various charges arising from an attempted robbery of an armored truck. Arguing that the defendants were seeking inappropriately to foreclose a higher sentence on Count 14 upon retrial. I. Motion for Clarification We think it apparent that defendants decided not to appeal Count 14 because of an error at trial that may have worked to their benefit. All parties concede that the jury mistakenly was 1 Although the defendants originally included Count 14 as part of their appeal. A new trial would have been required and they might have been acquitted. They might have been convicted again. The chance of acquittal was outweighed by the risk of the longer 2 Section 924(c) provides. If the firearm is a short barreled rifle. If the firearm is a machinegun. Or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler. The government's response to the clarification motion is two fold. We must address the government's sentencing challenge and should find that defendants are subject to the 30 year sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1149p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant William Hayden was convicted of receiving a firearm while under a felony </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-3152a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Booker argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that his sentence must be vacated and remanded in light of Booker v. One member of the arrest team asked Booker what he was doing outside. Booker responded that he was looking for his Newport cigarettes. Booker was charged in a four count indictment for unlawful distribution of cocaine base. The government introduced evidence that the gun was loaded. Although Booker's fingerprints were on neither the gun nor the Newport pack. Expert testimony that guns and drugs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-6337.htm">99-6337 -- U.S. V. FORTUNE -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR> Applying what is commonly known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6158.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Petitioner Appellant Glen Dale Hammon ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0127p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant testified at trial and conceded that he briefly had his brother's .25 caliber pistol in his possession but contended that he took it because his brother was intoxicated and he wished to make certain that the gun was safely stored away. On appeal defendant has designated four assignments of error: 1) he should have been provided with street clothes during the trial. 2) the district court erred in permitting testimony that the firearm was loaded at the time that it was confiscated from him. 4) he was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility despite his decision to go to trial. Although it was clear that the front bumper was bent and the windshield cracked where defendant's head had struck it on impact. I noticed the pistol was in the little thing right there at the little cockpit thing. He was reaching for it. He was still. You don't need to have this stuff in here. You are already in enough trouble as it is. I was concerned that he was going to hurt hisself [sic] or somebody else. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0345p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lloyd was sentenced to consecutive terms of fortysix and eighty four months. Lloyd filed a timely appeal arguing that the second count of the indictment was insufficient or duplicitous. Certain evidentiary rulings made during his trial were an abuse of discretion. This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1820.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Saying he should have been granted a directed verdict or given a new trial. </P> <P> His argument is that since the government introduced evidence of only one firearm in this case a .25 caliber Mauser semiautomatic pistol </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-2186.htm">99-2186 -- U.S. V. HECKARD -- 01/08/2001<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to 168 months of incarceration plus five years of supervised release. Background</strong> <p> Defendant was one of dozens of individuals targeted in a three year investigation into cocaine trafficking in Hobbs. Authorities discovered that his cocaine was transported by Texan Richard Baeza to New Mexico residents Mark Sanders and Andrew Pompey. Knew that he was one of Sanders' distributors. Flores was transporting a large quantity of cocaine to Sanders. Was unable to locate him. He told him that he was holding the cocaine for him at his house. Pompey was upset with Flores for letting Defendant keep the cocaine at his house. All convened at Defendant's home and nothing more was said. <p> At 6:00 a.m. on October 23. Other individuals were in the home and asleep. Neither the threats nor the affidavit were introduced into evidence. The court was satisfied that they qualified for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). After a rule 403 objection was withdrawn. The tapes were admitted without objection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1912p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge This is an appeal from a judgment in a criminal case. Was convicted under 18 U.S.C. The most substantial of which is that he did not violate the carjacking statute because. There is a steep path bordered by vegetation and rocks that leads from the road down to the beach. Who was sitting on the beach reading a newspaper. Lake stated that it was an 2 emergency. I'm here to have a nice time. Lake asked if he could have a drink from Clarke's cooler. Said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0137p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We need only ask whether an officer who employs deadly force against a fleeing suspect without reason to believe that the suspect is armed or otherwise poses a serious risk of physical harm is entitled to either qualified immunity or immunity under the law of Kentucky. We hold that he is entitled to neither. The Supreme Court has held that defendants in such suits are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. A plaintiff can overcome that immunity only by showing that (1) the defendant violated his constitutional or statutory rights and (2) the right at issue was sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right. The availability of interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity is an exception to the general rule that an appeal can be taken only from a final judgment. That exception is a limited one. We have jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal only if that appeal raises a pure question of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612854.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background The Evidence at trial was as follows: On the evening of February 10. Who was six months pregnant at the time. Were shopping at a department store located on the Fort Gordon military base in Georgia. Who was holding a gun down by his groin. Who was frightened by the threat and feared that she and her son would be hurt if she did not comply with the man's demands. Was forced to get into the car and was driven by the man to a Wachovia bank. The man had his hand in his pocket and told Young that the gun was in the pocket. Which was the maximum she could withdraw in one day. Young refused because she was afraid that he would kill them. Inside the restaurant there were three military police officers. The assailant was not found. Young testified that she did not believe she was choosing the assailant. She believed she was selecting the individual that most closely resembled the assailant so the police could use characteristics from that photograph to assist in their investigation. 4 Young also assisted the investigators with creating a sketch of the perpetrator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ5MjMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4923-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That ruling was a consequence of the District Court's conclusion that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Muhammad and that subsequent events justified the seizure of the rifle. BACKGROUND The background narrative that follows is based upon the factual findings of Magistrate Judge H. To whom the suppression issue was referred for a Report and Recommendation. The findings were made following a hearing and are included in the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge and adopted by the District Court. Was riding a bicycle west on Stanislaus Street toward Fillmore Avenue in the City of Buffalo. Who never was identified. The gun was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D03ABDFF7277C99F88256A610081EA0E/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955581.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Talley was not on trial for murder. The evidence was insufficient to permit the inference that he had committed murder. As to Norman Wilson we remand with instructions to vacate his conspiracy conviction and its related sentence because conspiracy is a predicate offense for his continuing criminal enterprise conviction. From 1988 until late 1994.1 Perkins and Norman Wilson were also charged with operating a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) through an extended series of drug trafficking violations. Perkins began cooperating with the government after he was arrested. Who were tried together. Perkins testified that he and Norman Wilson were partners and co managers of the Court Boys drug ring. Perkins was responsible for obtaining wholesale supplies of powder cocaine. Norman Wilson was in charge of cooking the cocaine into crack. Who admitted their involvement with the Court Boys organization and who were testifying for the government under plea agreements. We will discuss the evidence in greater detail as it becomes pertinent to the issues raised. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/03-6084.htm">03-6084 -- U.S. V. CARTER -- 11/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Defendant was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment to be followed by 36 months' supervised release. Defendant was not to possess a firearm. While the car's passenger door was open. Defendant denied knowing that the gun was in the car. His first contention is that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to find that Defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release. His second is that the district court impermissibly departed from the sentencing range recommended by the Sentencing Commission's policy statement. <p> <strong>Revocation of Supervised Release</strong> <p> We review for clear error the district court's findings of fact regarding Defendant's alleged supervised release violations. <u>United States v. The deputy testified that the firearm was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/628E021EAFC1FD4088257203007B1B5A/$file/0530488.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. was found guilty by a jury of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). He appeals his conviction.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3231. (2) whether there was insufficient evidence such that no rational trier of fact could have found that Mosley possessed firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Mosley admitted the coffee grinder lid was his. White powder residue later confirmed to be cocaine was found on the backpack. (3) In the kitchen. A plastic container holding a large amount of what was later determined to be cocaine. A bag of what was later determined to be crack cocaine. Officers found ammunition for several different firearms. (4) The government argued during trial that Mosley's apartment was not a home. Along with bills and other papers found in the apartment that were addressed to Mosley at a different address. The evidence demonstrated that the apartment was sparsely furnished and had no bed and little furniture. Mosley argued that the apartment was not a stash house for drug production but was his home. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-1399.htm">99-1399 -- U.S. V. VILLANUEVA -- 11/09/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Joseph Villanueva. Counsel also recognizes this Court is bound by its prior decisions. Defense counsel stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-3048.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. SIMPSON<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. After the jury was unable to reach a verdict in his first trial. Marlin Simpson was convicted on retrial of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Claiming: (1) because there was no manifest necessity for the first mistrial. His retrial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on either count. The residence was listed in the city directory as belonging to Marlin Simpson and his grandmother. He was carrying a handgun. He was riding in a second Chevy Nova being towed by the first Chevy Nova that he had been observed entering. A loaded Glock 9mm handgun was under the front seat of the vehicle in which Simpson was riding. No drugs were found in the car or on Simpson's person. When the warrant was executed at 2350 North Erie. Which is often used to cook cocaine into crack. Was found with approximately 26 grams of crack cocaine on his person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50EE6B4BACC8205988256EA800806555/$file/0250458.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Krouse was ultimately indicted on five federal weapons and drug charges. Krouse testified that the pair had commandeered his home office where most of the contraband was discovered. Krouse was convicted after trial by jury on four of five counts and sentenced to 161 months in prison.2 His appeal was timely. Which we address in a memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this opinion. 2 Krouse was convicted for possession of an unregistered firearm. KROUSE 7131 II [1] We are asked to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The House Judiciary Committee intended that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1618.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Sheketoff & Homan were on brief for appellant Marino. Was on brief for appellee. Vincent Marino appeal from district court orders which (i) rejected their motion to bar their retrial on certain charges as to which the jury was unable to reach verdicts. As their retrial was imminent. I BACKGROUND Appellants and twelve codefendants were indicted in April 1997 as alleged members or associates of organized crime. Was unable to reach verdicts as to appellants on counts 1. Ciampi was charged in counts 12 and 16. On the ground that their retrial on these counts was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because their acquittals on counts 4 and 31 were based on an implicit jury finding that the conspiracies charged in counts 3 and 30 did not exist. Appellants were not members. On the ground that his acquittals on these counts must have been based on an implicit jury finding that he neither used nor carried these particular weapons. The Motions to Dismiss Appellants argue that their retrial on count 3 is barred because the jury acquittal on count 4 must have been based on a finding that appellants were not members of the count 3 conspiracy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2419_006.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Modina Lim was convicted of knowingly and unlawfully possessing an unregistered sawed off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The shotgun was a Brazilian 2 No. 05 2419 manufactured E.R. The overall length of the shotgun was 24 inches. Section 5861(d) prohibits any individual from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0778n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Terrence Boards was convicted by a jury of being an accessory after the fact to the crime of retaliation against a witness and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Boards was sentenced on the felon in possession conviction and his offense level was enhanced. Boards argues that the district court erroneously applied the sentence enhancement because Boards's relevant conduct giving rise to his accessory after the fact offense ­ the taking of a gun from his co defendant and fleeing the scene of a shooting ­ was the same conduct that gave rise to his possession conviction. Boards was in a house owned by Patrick Bowling with Michael Simmons. A fifteen year old female who was also at Bowling's house. Which was about one block away from Bowling's house. Boards was detained and arrested. The gun was recovered from the abandoned car. Boards's resulting offense level was twenty eight. Claiming that he was only convicted of accessory after the fact. There was no evidence that he was involved in the primary offense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0233n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Henry Williams was prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Contending that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Memphis police officers Marcus Lee and Baris Beck responded to the call and were later joined by Sergeant Williams. Williams was asleep on his back on the floor. While Hightower and McLaurin were awake and lying on the bed and floor. The handgun removed from Williams was a .40 caliber Ruger handgun. A district court's ruling on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The parties stipulated that Williams is a convicted felon. That alone was sufficient evidence to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams possessed the gun. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/972138P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Summers and two other people in his group showed George the guns they were carrying and used threatening language. Helen Sholley testified that she reprimanded Summers for wielding a gun at her home while her children were present. Summers told Helen that he and the others did not carry weapons and that George must have been lying. Helen's testimony also indicated that the event may have occurred in the fall of 1994 rather than in the spring of 1995. United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 3 2 Summers's first argument on appeal is that the government failed to produce evidence sufficient to support his firearm conviction under § 924(c)(1). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-3058a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dean was on brief for the appellant. Were on brief for the appellee. It is the admission of the latter. Stopped the car in which Williams was a passenger for failing to stop completely at a stop sign and then straddling a double yellow line. The officers testified that Williams immediately reached for his waistband and that he was holding something </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114872.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ballinger claims that § 247 is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. We have little trouble concluding that § 247. Is a constitutional expression of Congress' well established power to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in order to prevent their use for harmful purposes. Concluding that § 247 was constitutional both facially and as applied. The panel held that although § 247 was a constitutional exercise of the commerce power. Ballinger is a practicing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/021394p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the government violated the Equal Protection Clause when it peremptorily struck two African American. The District Court held that race was not a factor in the strikes and that the government's religion related reasons for the strikes were permissible. Because we are satisfied that the government's peremptory strikes in this case were based on the jurors' heightened religious involvement rather than a specific religious affiliation. Because they were not racially motivated. We will affirm. Jerry DeJesus was stopped. DeJesus was charged with the illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). DeJesus' first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. DeJesus was sentenced to a prison term of 110 months. We will set forth only the facts that relate to these two issues. A. Jury Selection Jury selection for DeJesus' retrial was conducted in three phases. The prospective jurors were asked to complete a questionnaire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1088.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947057.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether proof of adequate notice is an element of the crime of possession or an affirmative defense. is an affirmative defense. That a restitution order under the Victim and Witness Protection Act can only be based upon harm resulting from conduct of which the defendant was convicted. I. Taneilian McArthur was involved in an argument with another man. He further claims that restitution was improper. Because it was founded on counts of which he was acquitted. When the instant case was briefed. Convictions under subsections (a) and (e) are limited by subsection (h). No person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility. Subsection (h) prohibits a conviction under subsection (a) unless conspicuous notice is posted to inform people of the prohibition. Subsection (h) is an element of the offense of possession </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/34ED0DBECD54D3FD8825706E004F0F6B/$file/0350471.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because police cars were in the area. They were caught shortly after the robbery because of a combination of bad luck and poor planning. SANDERS cooperated with police and eventually Sanders and Hamilton were apprehended during a traffic stop. Hopkins and Sanders were placed in the same jail. Hopkins and Sanders were later both moved to a second jail where they spoke to each other through the vents on several occasions. During these vent conversations Sanders asked Hopkins if he was going to testify against him. Which was purportedly from Hopkins and addressed to Sanders's attorney. Sanders was not involved in any way with the planning or execution of the U.S. Other inmates would think he was a snitch and would potentially harm him. These kites asked whether Hopkins was going to testify against Sanders and offered Hopkins favors. Where Sanders was housed. Arguing that it was inadmissible hearsay. The district court ultimately ruled that it was a party admission1 and thus admissible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-5201.htm">99-5201 -- U.S. V. MALONE -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-13961.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ORTIZ (1/14/2003, NO. 01-13961)<BR></A><BR> Ortiz was a private in the U.S. Answering </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974976.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Elliotte was driving a Nissan Altima. The robber asked Jefferson and Elliotte whether they were looking for the drug supplier. Elliotte stated that he was going to get his gun. Was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1465_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Terrance Thornton was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Thornton was sentenced to 252 months' imprisonment (21 years) under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The convictions and sentence are therefore affirmed. 2 I. Illinois was rocked by gunfire from a drive by shooting. This gas station was within a couple of miles of the shooting. Schultz was able to see the driver of the SUV. Sheehan noticed that the SUV was the only car in the lot. That the only people in the gas station were two customers. The SUV was parked with its engine running and lights on. Sheehan then asked Thornton if he was driving the SUV. Thornton responded by saying that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/97-3084a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. We affirm all of the convictions except Gilliam's s 922(g) firearms conviction. 1 Gross also contends that he was severely prejudiced by the district court's refusal to make an in limine ruling as to whether the government could cross examine his wife about an alleged inappro priate contact with a juror. Gilliam and Gross were indicted for armed bank robbery. 22 3901 and 22 105 (1981).2 They were found guilty by the district court of the felon in possession count and by the jury on all other counts.3 A third defendant. Was acquitted on all counts. Code ss 22 3204(b) and 105. 3 The defendants elected a bench trial on the s 922(g) charges. was opening the bank's parking lot gate so that he could park his car. Which was nearby with the driver's door open and the engine running. One man pressed something hard into Brewer's back that Brewer thought was a gun. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/01-13961.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ORTIZ (1/14/2003, NO. 01-13961)<BR></A><BR> Ortiz was a private in the U.S. Answering </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948428.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: Kevin Whitfield pleaded guilty to storing a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) and was sentenced to 102 months imprisonment. Whitfield also contends that U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) violates the equal protection clause and is beyond the statutory power of the Sentencing Commission. 1103 (11th Cir.) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0130n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hayden </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/032265np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Philadelphia Police Officers Jerold Seiple and Nate Smith 1 were riding in a marked patrol car in Philadelphia. Who was in the driver's seat. They were eventually able to knock the gun away. The defendant stated that he was not going back to jail. Smith was ultimately subdued and arrested. Subsequent investigation disclosed that it was an operable Smith & Wesson .9mm. The Federal Defender's Association was appointed to represent Smith. His trial was then continued until September 30. His earlier suppression motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing. The testimony of ATF Special Agent James Juvena was admitted without objection. That trial counsel was ineffective for denying him the right to testify.1 On October 8. The court The district court ordered the letter and affidavit docketed as a motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. 4 1 denied all of the outstanding motions and Smith was subsequently sentenced to 120 months incarceration plus a term of supervised release. Stating that he is unable to identify any non frivolous issue for review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77E130F93C1FE30D88256FEA000AB45F/$file/0350550.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Following a lawful traffic stop of a car in which DefendantAppellee Pulliam was a passenger. Pulliam was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. The gun's discovery was not the product of Pulliam's unlawful detention. The gun should not have been suppressed. Were patrolling in their vehicle through part of the city known for gang activity. Gang crime was expected because it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4141.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4309_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnny Jackson was tried and convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. One of the key components of his defense was that at the time he was alleged to have committed a shooting and to have possessed a gun. He was actually picking up his girlfriend from work. The Marshal testified that his drive time was short. Which provided the basis for the 2 No. 05 4309 prosecutor to argue in closing that Jackson could have committed the shooting and still had time to pick up his girlfriend. Since the experiment was offered in rebuttal and was conducted under substantially similar circumstances as Jackson's drive. We find that the evidence was properly admitted. In which the defendant's nephew was shot to death by Tarus Watkins's brother. Watkins was the only person at trial to testify about the incident. That after several blocks of walking the defendant peeked out from behind a church and then ran 1 Donny Richardson was later prosecuted and convicted for his role in the shooting. Watkins was not hit. A dispatch call from police headquarters was placed at 2:34 p.m. sending officers to the scene. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/002674P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1882.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. We are not persuaded that any error occurred. The gun and ammunition were located within inches of the marijuana. The weapon's hammer was cocked. He claims to have returned the truck to the appellant on Monday (only minutes before Tyrie made the traffic stop). A. The Speedy Trial Act The Speedy Trial Act The appellant's principal claim is that the prosecution did not bring him to trial within the time frame prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. That the district court therefore should have dismissed the indictment. The baseline premise of the Act is its requirement. That a defendant is entitled 4 to be tried within seventy days of his indictment or initial appearance before a judicial officer (whichever first occurs). For the Act contemplates that certain periods of time will be excluded from the computation. The salient dates and events are essentially undisputed. 84 (1st Cir. 1991) (holding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0742n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fisher challenges his conviction on the grounds that § 922(o) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power. The search warrant was issued in relation to a drug investigation into Fisher's girlfriend. Who was living with him at the time. The weapons were found in an unlocked gun cabinet along with other firearms and several boxes of ammunition. The ATF laboratory concluded that each weapon was capable of firing more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger without being manually reloaded. Fisher was indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts of unlawfully possessing a machine gun in violation of § 922(o). Agent Geoffrey Descheemaeker of the ATF testified that each gun was in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-2479.htm">00-2479 -- U.S. V. ARCHULETA -- 10/02/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-8093.htm">98-8093 -- U.S. V. SPRINGFIELD -- 11/17/1999<BR></A><BR> 4B1.4. <p> We have jurisdiction over defendant's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2212.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Glennon Professional Association was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. *Of the District of Puerto Rico. Appellant Phillip Wight was convicted of four counts of a multi count indictment charging both controlled substances and firearms violations.1 On appeal. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his firearms convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) (possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime) and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm). Finding that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. Are not in dispute. Codefendant Edward Dunbar was approached by an undercover police officer who sought to buy a large quantity of marijuana. Wight was seated in the front passenger seat. Fields were arrested. The vehicle was taken to the Manchester police station. Where an inventory search was conducted. The weapon was located underneath some newspapers behind the two front seats of the van. The pistol was in a partially unzipped case with the opening facing the passenger seat of the van where appellant Wight sat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0158n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the evidence the government presented was insufficient to support all three of his convictions. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support the convictions on Counts One and Three. We will affirm Lowe's convictions on those counts. We therefore will vacate Lowe's conviction on Count Two and remand the case to the district court. One of whom was about to enter it. Although he acknowledged that this particular business venture was not completely legitimate. Was so grateful for the item he purchased that he left the house to buy Lowe a beer. Lowe maintained that he did not have keys to the house and had never been to the house before. They decided to go into the house because the door was unlocked. The door was closed. No sex toys were found on the premises. Zooper testified that the door was open when the police arrived. Is for plain error. In reviewing for plain error we must determine whether (1) there was an error in the district court. (2) the error is plain. We must look at the instructions as a whole and we will not reverse unless the instructions are confusing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4678_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the sentence imposed is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and affirm the decision of the district court. 2 I BACKGROUND A. Both were indicted in the Northern District of Indiana on a two count indictment charging bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Both men subsequently were charged with the attempted manslaughter of Chief Hobbs in state court. The plea agreement was conditioned on Berkey receiving a sentence of no less than 20 years' imprisonment for his state conviction of attempted manslaughter. Berkey was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment in Indiana state court for his conviction of attempted manslaughter. The resulting sentencing range was 41 51 months' imprisonment. Berkey's federal sentence was to be 4 No. 05 4678 served consecutive to his state sentence. Duncan was acquitted of the attempted manslaughter charge in state court. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the two counts related to an earlier bank robbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/003457P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even if his conviction were lawful. His sentence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. Because we find that the District Court properly denied Wheat's motion to suppress and that the Apprendi error was harmless. Was being driven erratically in the northbound lane of Highway 169. The caller complained that the Nissan was passing on the wrong side of the road. Who was sitting in the front passenger seat. There were no other passengers. A check disclosed that Wheat's license was suspended but that notice of the suspension had The Honorable Mark W. Because Officer Samuelson was unfamiliar with the procedure for service. Because Officer Samuelson had noticed that the driver's hands were fidgeting. As Officer Samuelson was walking around toward the passenger side. Because it was raining during the duration of the stop. The dryness of the bag was remarkable. Wheat was indicted by a grand jury on one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2543.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1242p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This appeal is from a judgment of sentence imposed after defendant David George Brannan pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that the district court failed to properly apply § 5G1.3 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines so as to have his federal sentence run concurrently with a state court sentence he was serving. We will remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.[fn2] The events giving rise to the instant offense involved the accidental discharge of a gun while it was being removed from the trunk of a car in western Pennsylvania. Brannan testified that he was interested in selling the gun. As the gun was being removed from the trunk. Brannan pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County and was sentenced to 18 60 months. Brannan was indicted in federal court for having been a felon in possession of a firearm. He pled guilty on October 31 and was sentenced on February 10. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTEyMjlfc28ucGRm/03-1229_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-4181.htm">97-4181 -- U.S. V. COOPER -- 06/15/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0161p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Webb argues on appeal that: (1) his guilty plea was invalid as a result of the district court's failure to inform him properly of the charge against him during his change of plea hearing. (3) the district court's sentencing determination was erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Webb was riding in a car which was stopped by Corbin. Webb was then charged by information with knowing possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The base offense level is 22[.]. 3 levels are added in that the offense involved a destructive device. 2 levels are added in that the firearm was stolen. (b) Pursuant to § 3E1.1(a). A change of plea hearing was then held in the district court. During which the district judge engaged in a dialogue with Webb aimed at ensuring that Webb was competent to enter a plea. The government stated that the essential element of the information was that Webb </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-1458.htm">96-1458 -- U.S. V. THOMAS -- 06/09/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFA3843D73D838CE88256F16008325E5/$file/0350442.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that there was insufficient evidence that his answer was false. The firearm was not registered to me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014323.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He contends that the district court erroneously found that his possession of a firearm was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3557_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 62 months' imprisonment. Evidence was admitted at trial demonstrating that drugs were sold at the house where the firearm and ammunition were dis 2 No. 05 3557 covered.1 Mr. Strong's knowing possession of the drugs and the firearm and because it was not unduly prejudicial. Strong was not charged with any drug related offenses. Strong was charged in a six count indictment with possessing two firearms and four types of ammunition. Strong of four of the counts but was unable to come to a unanimous verdict on Counts 1 and 2.2 Count 1 charged Mr. The Government gave notice of its intent to introduce several pieces of evidence related to crimes that were not charged in Counts 1 and 2: information relating to the January 2003 controlled buy. Strong's counsel objected that this evidence was inadmissible. He contended that the Government would have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a1009n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted of eight counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The two defendants are Denton's boyfriend. Neely and Amir's cousin Brian Kelly were all living at 1380 Kansas #2. Kelly testified that he had acquired a new apartment and was in the process of moving out of 1380 Kansas #2 around the date of the arrests. Also staying at the apartment when the weapons were discovered were three employees of Amir's escort service. The women were identified only as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0937p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues: (1) that the district court should have bifurcated the elements of the offense with which he was charged. If this bifurcation was denied. The district court should have prevented the jury from learning that the prior felony conviction alleged in the indictment was for burglary. (3) that the district court should have excluded evidence that his possession of the firearm occurred during an aborted drug transaction. I. Jacobs was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. If severance was not granted. The court should nevertheless prevent the jury from learning that the prior conviction charged in the indictment was for burglary. The defense argued that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113961.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ortiz was a private in the U.S. Answering </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/00-3183.htm">00-3183 -- U.S. V. KHLEANG -- 01/10/2001<BR></A><BR> Appellants challenge the district court's determination that their conduct rose to the level of physical restraint. <p> The facts in these appeals are undisputed. While the gun was being waved around. Although the gun was not pointed at any particular individual for an extended period of time. The gun was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/963013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Donovan Walter Horsman was convicted in the district court2 of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months imprisonment. Horsman argues that: (1) section 922(g) is unconstitutional. Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 struck with a peremptory challenge should have been struck for cause. (3) government witnesses' testimony regarding a firearm trace report was inadmissible hearsay. I. Horsman was first convicted of burglary in Minnesota in April 1983. When he was eighteen years old. By the time he was thirty. While Horsman was on supervised release from incarceration for his fourth felony conviction. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Horsman was staying with his girlfriend. Glass discovered that both Horsman and her car were missing. Also missing from the apartment was a box of .38 special ammunition and a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum handgun belonging to Marjanovich. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1140.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Cover Sheet: Change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611181.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the pistol found during the warrantless search of his motel room should have been suppressed under both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. He alleges that the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on the prosecution's opening statement and that he was entitled to a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Kenneth Newsome was arrested as a suspect in the non fatal shooting of his wife and child that had occurred on 16 August 2004. A confidential informant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3173.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) that we should reverse his convictions related to witness intimidation because the district court should have suppressed certain email evidence due to the government's misconduct and alleged violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (3) that his 78 month sentence is unreasonable. That the district court was within its discretion to admit the email evidence. Bishop's sentence is reasonable. Acting suspiciously at a gas station that was often used for drug transactions. Which was parked at the gas station. That is a Hi Point 9 mm pistol. While court was in recess for the day. Bishop had previously been convicted of at least one felony that was classified as a crime of violence. The PSR determined that the range for imprisonment was 51 to <hr> 63 months. His rape conviction was reversed due to the discovery of exculpatory DNA. He was released from prison. Bishop would have been released in 1995 if he had not been convicted of the rape. Bishop should have been released in 1995. For the rape conviction that was overturned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054908p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court's decision was predicated largely upon its conclusion that the crime with which Bowers was charged. Is a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g) and (f)(1)(A). Section 3142(f)(1)(A) requires a Court to hold a detention hearing upon motion by the government if the defendant is charged with a crime of violence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0224p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Approximately two 1 Although both defendants were sentenced on November 21. Were not identifiable by the searching officers prior to opening the pill bottles. (iii) the vehicles that did not have obscured. Davidson was found to have a Base Offense Level of 30 due to the marijuana equivalency of the substances involved in Count One. That the Davidsons' plea agreements were not entered under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). This was in effect a finding that the portions of the plea agreements addressing the Firearm Enhancement must have been entered under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B). The district court found that it was appropriate to allow Mrs. The United States agrees that other firearms not seized from the residence were not related to the crimes for which the defendants are entering pleas. Davidson were sentenced to the minimum terms of imprisonment possible under the district court's Guidelines calculations. Before supplemental briefs were filed. Davidson were charged with violations of federal criminal law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4260.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to forty one months of imprisonment followed by thirty six months of supervised release. Sergeant Vaughn Allen of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department was on patrol in Salt Lake County. The officer noticed that the car's taillights were not working. He saw that there were four occupants. As if he were retrieving or concealing something on the floor. The 2 <hr> officer later determined that the man in the front passenger seat was Terry Paswaters and that the man in the rear passenger side seat was Mr. Was the driver. The officer testified that he was concerned about the occupants hiding drugs or drug paraphernalia. She responded that her license was suspended. Maciano did not have a valid driver's license. The officers learned that none of the other occupants were licensed to drive. Who indicated that his name was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7FE66A4E285F528188256C29007245EE/$file/0010609.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government contends that Larson's challenge to the suppression ruling is moot because. Because Larson may not have knowingly and intelligently understood the consequences that the stipulation would have on his appeal. Deputy Sheriff Howard Horwitz stopped the car Larson was driving on Highway 1 in California. Larson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court denied the motion with respect to Larson's statement that the gun was under the seat and declined to suppress the gun. Were not manufactured in California. LARSON some point before they were found in the defendant's possession. 3. This stipulation shall be proffered to the Court as the evidence upon which the Court will decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the charge of being an ex felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The essence of the government's contention is that. Because the gun and Larson's statements to Horwitz were never in evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055500np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Tysaan David was found guilty of possessing a firearm while being a convicted felon. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the evidence at trial was sufficient to permit a rational finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We will affirm appellant's conviction. Who are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case. The taking of testimony began on the 12th and was completed on the 13th. The charge was submitted to the jury on the basis of § 922(g)(1) only. 2 1 David does not challenge the denial of his motion to suppress on this appeal. 2 together with closing arguments and the jury charge. David was sentenced to ninety two months imprisonment. B. The evidence at trial Evidence of the following was presented at trial: While on patrol in a marked police car on the evening of October 22. David was alone. We will refer to him throughout as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/03-3103a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Garner was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 2 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Because the challenged testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show that Garner knew of and constructively possessed the gun. Garner was indicted. (2)).2 Garner and Haywood were tried in the district court June 5 to June 13. A multi jurisdictional stolen auto In light of our conclusion that admitting the testimony was not error. We do not reach the government's argument that it was harmless error. Haywood was also indicted on one count of carrying a pistol without a license (in violation of D.C. Which was dismissed on the government's motion. 2 1 3 task force. Haywood was driving the vehicle and Garner was sitting in the front passenger seat. Which was in his waistband. Who was standing behind Moseley. Forward and back </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3073a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/09/063915P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ingram was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. Who was in the area. Ingram was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Who are not related. Was the boyfriend of Ashley Young. Ingram was angry with Dean because he had refused to commit a robbery with Ingram. Threatened to shoot through the door of the apartment where Dean was visiting Ashley. When they were outside the apartment. Was refused entry. We will reverse a conviction only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Angel claimed to have seen three guns. Zimmerman told the 911 operator that there were five guns. Inconsistencies as to whether an additional witness named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2035.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy and MacDonald & Murphy were on brief for appellant Mario M ndez. With whom Jennifer Petersen and Petersen & Suchecki were on brief for appellant Hannover Alberto Segura. Was on brief for appellee. Their arrests and convictions were the result of an extended undercover and surveillance operation conducted by law enforcement agents seeking to discover the source of an increased heroin trade in Portland. Each defendant was convicted of participating in a conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin and various other crimes. The facts are resolved in the light most favorable to the verdict and consistent with the record. As is required by our standard of review in an appeal from a final judgment of conviction. Gonz lez was found hiding near the Merrimack River. M ndez was arrested outside 36 Park Street. Upon entering the apartment they observed Segura running from the bathroom where plastic bags containing white powder were going down the toilet. All appellants were convicted of Count I. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION We have considered the arguments of each defendant and find no error in their convictions or sentences. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-3047.htm">02-3047 -- U.S. V. NORRIS -- 02/19/2003<BR></A><BR> While the officers were still at the scene. Norris returned to his residence and was promptly taken into custody for outstanding warrants. Norris thereafter was charged in federal court with violating 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/053521P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He also asserts the sentence is unreasonable. He admitted that the meth items in the garage were his. He was involved in another altercation with an officer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-4092.htm">01-4092 -- U.S. V. BAYLES -- 11/15/2002<BR></A><BR> Bayles was unaware of that statute. He further contends that the district court made an erroneous factual finding by (1) rejecting his contention that the guns he possessed were used solely for sporting purposes or lawful collection and therefore (2) denying his request for a reduction in the offense level. <p> We reject Mr. Because the district court's downward departure is not supported by this record. The order is set forth on a preprinted form that contains standard language. <u>See</u> Aplt's App. at 72 76 (Protective Order. The Respondent is prohibited from purchasing. That paragraph is <u>not</u> initialed or checked by the issuing judge. Bayles's possession of firearms while subject to a protective order was a violation of federal law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0250p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Caraway argues on appeal that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally insufficient to sustain his conviction. Porter was told by an unidentified individual that the driver of the stolen car was a black man in a brown jacket walking away from the vehicle about 300 feet from Lt. Was subdued by Officers Holguin and Weddle. After the suspect was secured. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3319.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Larry Rucker was convicted on five counts related to two armed robberies and was sentenced to 509 months' imprisonment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Was severed from Mr. Where Toni Quintanar was working alone as a cashier. There was a customer in the store and the robber quickly left. Packer called 911 and informed the dispatcher that the robber was a black male with braids or corn rows in his hair and wearing a green camouflage jacket. Noticing an individual a short distance down the street that he believed was the robber. That individual was Mr. Who was approximately a block away. Who at that time was barefoot and had <hr> slipped and fallen in the wet conditions. Rucker was in custody. Rucker was in custody. One of whom was Mr. She also identified the shirt he was wearing when he was apprehended as the same shirt worn by the KC Quick Pick robber. Rucker as well as the jacket he was wearing when he robbed Bargains to the Max. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031381P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mark Backer was charged in a four count indictment with (1) being an unlawful user of a controlled substance and knowingly possessing fifty four firearms. He also contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he knowingly possessed a machine gun. I. Facts The Mandan Police Department received a tip from a confidential source that Backer was distributing drugs from his machine shop in Mandan. Kottsick told 2 the officers that Backer was living at a machine shop in Bismarck. We believe that Backer's ineffective assistance claims would be more appropriately addressed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding before the 1 A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/7fe66a4e285f528188256c29007245ee/$FILE/0010609.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government contends that Larson's challenge to the suppression ruling is moot because. Because Larson may not have knowingly and intelligently understood the consequences that the stipulation would have on his appeal. Deputy Sheriff Howard Horwitz stopped the car Larson was driving on Highway 1 in California. Larson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court denied the motion with respect to Larson's statement that the gun was under the seat and declined to suppress the gun. Were not manufactured in California. LARSON some point before they were found in the defendant's possession. 3. This stipulation shall be proffered to the Court as the evidence upon which the Court will decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the charge of being an ex felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The essence of the government's contention is that. Because the gun and Larson's statements to Horwitz were never in evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-6129.htm">00-6129 -- U.S. V. HANEY -- 08/29/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-5072.htm">97-5072 -- U.S. V. LOWE -- 04/09/1998<BR></A><BR> His accomplices were armed and. All four men were charged with conspiracy. The men were also charged on an aiding and abetting theory. Lamar Lowe was convicted on all counts. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. <u>United States v. Which was decided after his convictions were affirmed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416745.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Glover raises three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously found that Glover's statement to federal agents was admissible because he waived his Miranda rights. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. Because the district court did not err in admitting Glover's statement and the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. Because the district court erred in sentencing Glover under a mandatory guidelines scheme and the error was not harmless. Glover was not present at the time of the search. Who were present. To verify that the gun was his. Glover made statements about the gun. 2 Glover was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Glover was advised of his rights and waived them in writing. Durr testified that Glover was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974720.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4720 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Asserting that the evidence was insufficient to convict him under § 924(c) on Count 2. I. Wilkerson first asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of using or carrying a firearm on June 6. In deciding whether the evidence was sufficient. The relevant question is not whether the court is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Testimony at trial discloses that Wilkerson was involved with Ralph Winkfield. Wilkerson was one of four occupants in the car. He was riding in the front passenger seat. Ralph Winkfield testified that he was Wilkerson's sole supplier of crack cocaine in June 1992 and that he supplied Wilkerson with the 1.1 grams of crack. We have defined </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2884.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After he was released in 1999 from the prison term he was serving for the murder conviction. On that evening he was involved in an altercation that resulted in his current 2 No. 02 2884 conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Which bars convicted felons from possessing guns that have traveled in interstate commerce. The parties stipulated that Saunders had a prior felony conviction that was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015294.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All appellants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Sicard was also convicted of one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The evidence at trial was built around the testimony of informant Nelson Murillo. Murillo was not under investigation. Reversal is warranted if a single conspiracy is charged in the indictment but multiple conspiracies are proven at trial. If the variance was material and substantially prejudiced the defendants. A rational trier of fact could have found that a single conspiracy existed beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether a jury could have found that a single conspiracy existed. The nature of the underlying scheme was for Ruiz. The evidence indicates that Ruiz may have been the person responsible for importing the cocaine. Suarez explained to him that he was lending people and equipment to Ruiz in order to transport the drugs that Ruiz had smuggled into the country. It is clear that he primarily took direction from F. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/01-5104a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was James H. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. There are nine plaintiffs. Five are individuals who claim that although they are eligible for a certification. They are unable to obtain one. Two are persons whose ability to sell or transfer these fire arms allegedly has been impaired by the inability of prospec tive purchasers to obtain certifications. Two are local chief law enforcement officers. That he is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph appearing on the application are those of the applicant and that the firearm is intended by the applicant for lawful purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053423P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Edward Maloney was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. He was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. I. Maloney was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. While he was driving behind the vehicle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-4104.opb.html">UNITED STATES V. GIBSON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Finding that public policy permits the stop and frisk of an individual when police have a partially corroborated anonymous tip that the individual has a firearm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0NzctY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6477-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge.* Defendant appellant Edward Gandia was convicted. They were justified in making a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-4970.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ADAMS (3/26/1998, NO. 96-4970)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> Appellant David Adams was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Adams appeals his conviction on the ground that the government failed to produce any evidence that the firearm was operable. Was approached by a stranger outside the pawn shop who asked Adams to pawn the shotgun. Adams was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxMjNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9123_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-11329.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FALLEN (7/9/2001, NO. 99-11329)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-5165.htm">01-5165 -- U.S. V. CAVELY -- 02/04/2003<BR></A><BR> District Judge. <p> <center></center> <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415629.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miguel Angel Diaz Boyzo was convicted of distributing methamphetamine and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Diaz Boyzo argues that the evidence against him was insufficient to support the convictions. Factual Background Diaz Boyzo was indicted in connection with an alleged conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine involving Leonel Villa Gamino. One of whom was later identified as Eustolio Villa Gamino. Villa Gamino then had the CI and Agent Butler follow him back to Huntington Creek apartments and instructed them to stay there and await a telephone call from him when he was ready to close the deal. Leonel Villa Gamino explained that his brother was driving the drugs from California. Arrangements were made for Agent Butler to purchase ten pounds of methamphetamine from Leonel Villa Gamino the following day. Was following the truck. The driver's and passenger's seats were occupied. The driver's seat was empty. In which the CI and Agent Butler were seated. Inside the beer box were five wrapped. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-11329.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FALLEN (7/9/2001, NO. 99-11329)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1588.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Muriel was arrested during the execution of a warrant to search his girlfriend's apartment. Muriel claims that he was not reaching for the gun but for his pants. At the time he was arrested. He was facing a pending violation of a probationary term and a suspended sentence in Rhode Island Providence County Superior Court. 2 2 In the case at bar. Muriel was indicted on three counts: Count I. The case was placed on the trial calendar for December 1995. Between the time the plea agreement was accepted and Muriel's sentencing. Which was dropped by the government pursuant to the plea agreement. 18 U.S.C. 3 3 924(c)(1) provides. Mere possession of a firearm by a person committing an offense is not sufficient. Muriel was subsequently sentenced to thirty three months in prison. Which was dropped by the government pursuant to the plea agreement. Muriel argues further that since the sentencing court was not convinced by a fair preponderance of 4 4 the evidence on Count I. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/981183P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Turner gave Dolezal a piece of paper on which was written a false name and other information. Was unsteady on his feet. Lalla believed that Turner was impaired by something other than alcohol. As Lalla was pulling away. Officer Greg Humrichouse conducted tests to determine if Turner was under the influence of drugs. Turner was cooperative and answered questions appropriately. Was going to sell them so he could get money to buy Christmas presents for his daughter. Turner was cooperative. The doctor reported that Turner's I.Q. was in the lowaverage to borderline range. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0NzctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6477-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge.* Defendant appellant Edward Gandia was convicted. They were justified in making a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-7150.htm">99-7150 -- U.S. V. HOLT -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR> (2) whether an officer conducting a traffic stop may ask the driver about the presence of weapons in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous. We hold that the officer's question about the existence of a loaded weapon in the vehicle was justified on the grounds of officer safety. An officer may ask the stopped motorist whether there is a loaded firearm in the car even in the absence of particularized suspicion of the existence of such a firearm. The objective safety risks to officers during routine traffic stops in general have led courts to approve reasonable steps to insure officer safety. The admitted impetus for establishing a checkpoint at this location was the officers' suspicion that the defendant. Was transporting illegal drugs along Treat Road.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-8055.htm">00-8055 -- U.S. V. BROWNING -- 06/14/2001<BR></A><BR> A 911 dispatcher in Wyoming received a phone call from a woman claiming to have just been assaulted and to have just exited the vehicle in which the assault took place. That Browning had driven off with the caller's property. <p> Based on that information Deputy Darrell Frye was dispatched to find Browning's vehicle. Are frequently used to weigh drugs. Browning was then arrested and advised of his <u>Miranda</u> rights. The total time from the initial stop to Browning's arrest was approximately twenty minutes. <p> Based on statements Browning made the day after his arrest. Wyoming police officers walked along the shoulder of the highway near where Browning was pulled over and found a gun. Browning's fingerprints were found on the gun. <p> At his request. Browning again was advised of his <u>Miranda</u> rights. The DEA agents clearly stated that they were promising nothing to Browning. (<u>See. Doc. 31 Ex. 1 at 4 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5104a.html">KENT A. LOMONT V. PAUL O'NEILL<BR></A><BR> Halbrook argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/971593P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Henry Belitz was indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Belitz Belitz pled guilty to the conspiracy charge and was sentenced by the district court2 to 60 months The Honorable Howard F. Two locked bags containing approximately six pounds of methamphetamine were found in a small refrigerator. Were found in a locked tool box. Belitz did not have a key to the locked bags and. Had given that key to Crestoni and did not have it in his possession at the time of the search. found in the basement. Scales and weapons were also Upstairs. Which are the subject of this appeal. A. Section 2D1.1(b)(1) Enhancement Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two level increase in a defendant's base offense level </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1112.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bail was set at $10. The district court was informed that. Defendant had been deprived of his right under 18 U.S.C. 3145(b) to prompt review of a detention order and 2 2 consequently was entitled to release. He was arrested. Defendant's second arrest was described in a detailed report of the arresting officer. Driscoll noticed that the passenger was sweating heavily and moving his legs against the seat. Defendant said he had spilled tonic and was wiping it up. Felt the floor and ascertained it was dry. While the operator was being handcuffed. Both defendant and the driver were subsequently charged with possession of a dangerous weapon (handgun) without a license. The weapon offense is a felony under state law. 1 (crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison is a felony). Reiterated much of what was in the reports. His information was not based on personal knowledge. One was not traced. Two 4 4 others were owned by George Caruso. A club of which defendant was an associate. The sheath of the knife was taped to the steering wheel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042160np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terrance Branch was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He was tried to a jury and subsequently sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. Branch also argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury on joint possession because the evidence that he possessed the firearm was legally insufficient. Informed him that a firearm was hidden in the home's utility room. They were accompanied by four back up law enforcement officers. Branch and his then girlfriend were present during the search. Haggerty asked Branch </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-8110.htm">02-8110 -- U.S. V. JARDINE -- 04/20/2004<BR></A><BR> Jardine contends that the district court should have suppressed firearm evidence discovered during a search of his residence because the warrant authorizing the search was based on impermissibly stale information. Conspiracy to possess or distribute methamphetamine. <p> Jardine was thus sentenced in accordance with the controlled substances guideline. The firearms used for the two level enhancement were not the same firearms used to convict Jardine under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-4104.opb.html">UNITED STATES V. GIBSON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Finding that public policy permits the stop and frisk of an individual when police have a partially corroborated anonymous tip that the individual has a firearm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/96-2078.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. ROMERO<BR></A><BR> (5) Romero's prior conviction for conveying a weapon in a federal prison is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-4970.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ADAMS (3/26/1998, NO. 96-4970)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> Appellant David Adams was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Adams appeals his conviction on the ground that the government failed to produce any evidence that the firearm was operable. Was approached by a stranger outside the pawn shop who asked Adams to pawn the shotgun. Adams was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0106n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a direct appeal by the Defendant Appellant. Springhouse Tavern is located in Mason County. Deputy Hord was approached by Sandra Faris. Sitting by designation. * who smelled of alcohol and was wet. Hord and Fitch took Faris home to make sure that Defendant was not in the residence. Faris asked the officers to search the house to see if Defendant was in the house. Faris tried to open the safe but it was locked and she did not have a key. She also told the deputies that Defendant was a convicted felon. This information was attached to the affidavit for the search warrant. The warrant was executed that day. Defendant was present at the house when officers were waiting for Faris to arrive before executing the warrant. A locksmith was called to open the gun safe. The officers seized these items. 2 Defendant was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of various firearms. Arguing that the warrant was not based on probable cause. The district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3151.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Ashlock was carrying a gun. They soon determined that he was likely under the influence of illegal narcotics and unable to waive his rights knowingly and voluntarily. Ashlock admitted that the gun found by the police was the same gun he possessed while fleeing Officer Dorsett. The tapes were lost or destroyed. He argues that the district court should not have admitted his confession that he possessed a firearm because <hr> the government did not prove that the confession was knowing and voluntary. Ashlock shoot the gun during the chase because it was unfairly prejudicial. Ashlock first argues that the destruction of the tape recordings of the police interrogation prevented the government from proving that his confession was knowing and voluntary. (2) the error was plain. When determining whether a confession is voluntary. Ashlock until after he was no <hr> longer under the influence of drugs. There is no evidence that the police used coercive tactics to force Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062002np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jonathan Jones appeals the 120 month sentence he received after he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g). There was insufficient evidence to prove that Jones used the firearm in connection with another felony and that he perjured himself during trial. We will affirm the District Court's judgment of sentence. I. Because we write only for the parties who are familiar with the factual and legal background to this case. We will set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis. Jones was charged in a one count indictment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after police found a .40 caliber Glock pistol in his waistband following a shooting incident outside of a club. As the Boardwalk was closing. Knowing he was a convicted felon. Jones's primary contention on appeal is that the District Court lacked sufficient evidence to find. That he used the firearm in connection with another felony and that he perjured himself at trial.1 We have jurisdiction to review the final judgment of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/01-4016.htm">01-4016 -- U.S. V. ANDINO -- 10/02/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Jose Lorenzo Andino appeals from the district court's imposition of sentence following his plea of guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051288np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taliaferro argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Is controlling. Therefore we will affirm Taliaferro's conviction. Clifford Taliaferro was the supplier for the suspected drug ring. Two semi automatic pistols and an AK 47 semiautomatic assault rifle were found in the closet in close proximity to the box containing the one kilogram of cocaine. This larger amount of cocaine was concealed in a pile of men's clothing. A 12 count indictment was returned against Clifford Taliaferro and others involved in the drug organization. Taliaferro was also charged with possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Taliaferro was found guilty by a jury on Counts 1. Taliaferro was sentenced to an aggregate term of 120 months imprisonment. That count was not before the jury. Alleging that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to conclude that the seized firearms were possessed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0470n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that a rational juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Nichols was guilty of both counts. Because we find that the officers were properly qualified. Nineteen year old Nichols and his girlfriend were passing a quiet evening at home with a film. Sitting by designation. * agreed because he was looking forward to smoking crack. Who was concerned for the welfare of her child. Sawed off shotgun in the trunk of his car because the neighborhood was dangerous and set out with a bag of crack. They stopped him and determined that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. While the inventory was in progress. He also volunteered that the gun was probably stolen because he had purchased it on the street for fifty dollars. Nichols was not its registered owner. Who were. They asked him if he was carrying anything illegal. Nichols answered that he might have crack in one of his jacket pockets and. 2 Nichols said that he had planned to sell the crack because Christmas was coming and he needed money to buy gifts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/945236.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Deros </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EACC38D4421CD6F7882571E100009E89/$file/0450431.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Washington contends that he is entitled to have his convictions reversed because: 1) the district court improperly admitted into evidence statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. 2) Washington was prejudiced when the judge admitted hearsay into evidence. 3) Washington was prejudiced as a result of prosecutorial misconduct when the Government. Claiming that Washington should have been sentenced to seven years because there was brandishing of a firearm in furtherance of the armed bank robbery. There also was testimony that one UNITED STATES v. When Taglioretti told Washington that there were several people cooperating. Washington responded by saying that he was willing to listen to the agents without an attorney present. He also gave conflicting testimony about whether he made any statements after he was advised of his Miranda rights. Washington testified that he could not clearly remember the interview because he was under the influence of alcohol and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/953175P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted by a jury of three counts of armed bank robbery. Cleophus Davis was arrested and charged with all three robberies. He fired a shot but no one was injured. Ethel Griffin had been in her car in the plaza parking lot where the Mid City Bank is located. (There was testimony that it takes three to five minutes to travel by car to this location from the Mid City Bank on 74th Street.). Teller Susan Grow testified that the robber was an African American male she could see his skin through the ski mask eye holes. She estimated that he was approximately 5'5'' to 5'8'' tall and weighed approximately 140 pounds. Another employee testified that the robber was approximately 5'7'' or 5'8'' tall with a thin build. Fresh shoe prints were found in the snow along the path where the robber fled. An Omaha police senior crime laboratory technician testified that the prints found near the Streamliner Credit Union were similar to those found near the scene of the first robbery at the 74th Street Mid City Bank. John Coats was in his car at a stoplight on the intersection of 42nd Street and Farnum. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1876p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue in this case is whether mere possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/021292P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nickolas James Conrad was charged in a one count indictment with possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841. The defendant was convicted for possession of a firearm by a felon and for possession of an unregistered sawed off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. We stated: This statement was clearly improper. There is even less justification for allowing the prosecutor to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0061n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was accidentally shot and killed following a high speed police chase. Lee was initially driving Babb's vehicle. The vehicle drove away at a high rate of speed as Bland was approaching Babb's vehicle on foot.1 A high speed chase2 of the vehicle lasted for eight minutes until the tires of the vehicle struck </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0890n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Adkins was convicted on September 14. Adkins contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to result in his conviction and that the district court erred in sentencing when it treated the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. Radioed his dispatcher with information he received by cell phone from another officer indicating that drugs were being sold at a specific address in Youngstown. Mulligan grabbed onto some of Adkins's clothing and was thereafter pulled over the fence by Adkins. While Mulligan was cutting across a vacant lot in order to intercept Adkins. After Adkins was secured into custody. The government presented evidence at trial that the handgun was stolen from a residence in 1997. Adkins's criminal history was determined to be at Category III. His offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 was 26. Defendant claims that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict that he was in possession of the firearm. The `relevant question is whether. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-3080a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. One of whom was Appellant Melvin Goddard. Were wearing black coats and blue jeans and that there was a substantial difference in their heights. Only two were close to 5'8 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4193.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Carl Lynn Hopkins pled guilty to one count of being a convicted (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Hopkins were arguing when Mr. Hopkins yelled he was going to get his gun. I would have shot them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/052914P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was classified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Had stolen a weapon from her the previous day and was now standing outside her apartment building. She said she was afraid to go outside. Poe was charged with possessing a firearm on or about May 18. The district court ruled prior to trial that an instruction on the justification defense was not warranted. She stated that the reason she called the police and denied pulling the gun on Poe was because she was angry that he was leaving her for his exwife and she wanted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He flashed his spotlight at the residence and observed a black male kneeling in front of a window with a long black object in his hand (although Jefferson initially testified that he may have seen the suspect climbing out of the window). He was not sure. He further testified that he was able to get </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1324.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Arnoldo Gutierrez Ayala pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of a mixture or substance (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was sentenced to 87 months' imprisonment. The informant wore a wire during the transaction and was debriefed afterwards by DEA agents. The informant related that the transaction took place in the garage area and that while he and Gutierrez Ayala were talking. Indicated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/014127.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Will affirm. Orr was indicted on two counts and pled guilty to the count that charged use of a dangerous weapon in connection with bank robbery. Orr was sentenced to 50 months imprisonment. He raised two objections: (1) the pellet gun he used in the robbery was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1274.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the Eleventh Circuit. Horace said he was looking for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994929.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which were imposed by the district court after they pled guilty to offenses arising from the armed robbery of a mail truck.1 We affirm the sentences for the reasons explained below. Ryan was employed at the post office where it occurred. He said he believed that Elizabeth heard Ryan discuss with him the need to use a gun to intimidate the postal employees because of the number of times the gun was dis 1 Ryan pled guilty to conspiracy to rob the United States mail. As Ryan had done when he was interviewed by the postal inspectors. Told them how he came to have it. Told them that Ryan and Elizabeth obtained money from him several times during the month he was holding their share of the robbery proceeds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/01-3073a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Roscoe C. The remedy afforded under 28 U.S.C. s 2255 is inadequate. Smith demonstrates that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. s 924(c) is unlawful in view of the court's interpretation of the substantive provisions of that statute. He is confined in a district located in a circuit in which. There is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-2003.htm">02-2003 -- U.S. V. AMORES -- 10/22/2003<BR></A><BR> Amores was charged with the following offenses. <u>See</u> I R. He was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment for counts I through IV and 60 months for Count V. Amores first contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0987n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress a handgun seized during a warrantless search of the home where he was residing. Because the district court properly concluded that there was one continuous search that did not exceed the scope of the exigencies that justified the warrantless entry and seizure of the firearm. Were riding together when they were dispatched to a location The Honorable Nancy G. The dispatch informed them that a fight was in progress. That they were to talk with the reporting neighbor. He told them that he was in his bedroom watching television and heard four to five gunshots. Because the back door to the residence was standing wide open and there was no screen door. Informing him that the back door was standing open. There was no response. They could see from outside the doorway that the kitchen was in disarray. A pot of food was spilled on the floor. Furniture was overturned. Deputies McAlister and Stewart and Sergeant Briley then entered and started to search the house because of the report that shots were fired and the home was in obvious disarray. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-2247.htm">03-2247 -- U.S. V. ZAVALZA-RODRIGUEZ -- 08/17/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> The single issue in this sentencing appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that. 2D1.1 sentence enhancement applied because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041721np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. (2) physical evidence and statements to police supporting that conviction should have been suppressed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Patrick was then taken to the Wilkes Barre police station. Patrick was also shown his Miranda rights in writing. That he was willing to answer questions. Was now dealing crack obtained from a supplier in New York. When Patrick was asked for consent to search his home. Including the location where the controlled purchases were made. That the meetings between Patrick and unknown persons were consistent with drug transactions. Within a few feet of the weapons and the cash under the mattress were approximately forty grams of crack cocaine in a man's sneaker. Patrick said again that he understood them and was willing to be questioned. He refused to identify who they were. We need not discuss this offense further because we find that the evidence supports a conviction under the same Section for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. 4 1 In reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962976P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Parmoto Purvis was tried before a jury and convicted in the Southern District of Iowa of numerous drug offenses stemming from his leadership role in the distribution of large amounts of cocaine. We uphold the jury verdict if there is an interpretation of the evidence The court imposed a life sentence on the CCE conviction. The court did not impose a sentence as to one section 924(c)(1) conviction because both it and a different section 924(c)(1) conviction for which the court imposed the statutorily mandated sentence were predicated on the same drug trafficking offense. 2 2 that would allow a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Purvis argues that the evidence is insufficient to convict him on three of the four firearm charges. The guns were kept loaded and readily accessible and were used routinely to protect the drugs. He also set up a security camera that enabled persons inside the house to monitor what was happening outside. 83 (8th 4 Cir. 1996).3 In addition to general testimony that Purvis instructed We note that each of the firearm charges was submitted to the jury under only the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0369n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Larry Vining was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant was sentenced on August 9. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0274p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Berman & Dowell was on brief. Was on brief. Appellant David Hollis </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0442p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Gooding appeals from a criminal judgment and commitment order following a jury trial where he was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a handgun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). The parties have agreed to waive oral argument and. This panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Nancy Bridgeman and Amber Thomas were in their Johnson City. Both women testified that they were not previously acquainted with this man. Who was later identified as Gooding. Gooding further explained that he would be in trouble if he was caught in possession of a gun. Gooding testified that he went to the apartment building after he had received a phone call from his wife who stated that she was at Kim Carroll's apartment and that she desired to leave. She did not have the money to pay for the drugs that she had consumed. Gooding testified that he told his wife through the apartment door that he was going to summon the police. Gooding testified that her response was that he had better not call the police because the gun­that she had allegedly purchased for security purposes while Gooding was in prison­was located in the truck. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2152.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment. Lowered the Government's burden of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. (3) there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. White was driving. Witness accounts conflicted as to whether the car was purple or black. Witness accounts indicated that the shooter was with a female passenger. Jimenez's girlfriend was Michelle Flores and that she resided at 334 E. The address listed on the truck's registration was also 334 E. Both of whom were in the car with the shooting victim. Flores and her son Gilbert were both present during the search. Gilbert was sitting on a couch in the den with an unloaded .223 caliber rifle next to him. Gilbert indicated that there were other guns in the house. There was a gun safe in the dining room. Not all of the firearms were in the safe. Jimenez was subsequently arrested for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.(1) Prior to trial. Arguing that there were insufficient facts in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0085n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After concluding that the investigative stop of the car in which Baldwin was a passenger was illegal. Officer Thomas Coombs of the Cincinnati Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A17E990A95C29FF882571C4007CE299/$file/0510365.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Robert Dean Ellsworth was convicted of robbery and first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole by a Nevada state court in 1988. He was paroled after serving 16 years. He was arrested while in the possession of a loaded nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun. The district court applied a two level offense enhancement in accordance with the advisory Sentencing Guidelines because the firearm he possessed was stolen. The government admitted that it could not prove Ellsworth knew that the gun was stolen. Knowledge is not necessary for this offense enhancement to apply. See also id. cmt. n.19 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1487.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lunt & Duncan were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Defendant appellant Charles Powell was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He was then sentenced to the statutory maximum of 120 months' imprisonment. Powell was standing outside of his truck. He was holding food and conversing with Arvetta Boykins his girlfriend and Boykins' mother as the two women sat in the truck. The truck was parked on Boston's Humboldt Avenue near its intersection with Ruthven Street and across from Humboldt Liquors. As this conversation was taking place. There were four young men in the Subaru. Each of whom was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood pulled up. The men in the car yelled something to a couple of young men Chris Cheney and Ernest Rhodes who were standing out on Humboldt. Knowing that trouble was brewing. Powell had returned to Humboldt Avenue and was talking with Cheney and Rhodes in front of Humboldt Liquors. He had his hand in his jacket pocket and was leaning to his left. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/031414P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was also required to pay a $3. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 district court erred (1) in its conclusion that he was guilty of the firearm offense. I. Background The substantive facts of the case are not in dispute. Advantage Plus Chiropractic Clinic (APCC) was formed in 1996 by Stephen Erhart and Coral Peterson. Audio and video devices were used to conduct an undercover surveillance of APCC for several months. The gun was operable. Admitted that ninety five percent of his business was fraudulent. Peterson signed a plea agreement acknowledging that seventy five percent of APCC's business was fraudulent. Erhart was offered a similar agreement. Erhart was convicted on all offenses. Arguing that it should have been lower. Erhart stated that he did not recall admitting to a ninety five percent fraud rate and contended that any estimate that he may have given resulted from FBI pressure. The government presented evidence that Erhart was responsible for $3.7 million in reasonably foreseeable losses sustained by insurance companies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2331.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. Alberto Beto Becerra was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. He was sentenced to 235 months on the conspiracy and drug possession counts. Federal agents learned from intercepted calls that Lopez was planning to deliver four pounds of methamphetamine to Becerra. Which agents learned was registered to Becerra's wife. No one was home at the residence. Fearing that the methamphetamine they suspected was in the black <hr> truck had been unloaded. Becerra was driving the car when it was stopped. Who is defendant Becerra's nephew. Amaya was arrested near the black truck. ANGIE: Because my uncle is over here being detained. LUPE: They have him detained? Other phone calls between Angie Becerra and Lopez were also recorded. Becerra was indicted in a three count superceding indictment charging him with conspiracy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3399.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant Appellant Thomas Canal Davis pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C 922(g) and was sentenced to 57 months of incarceration. Davis appeals the District Court's application of United (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Which provides for a four level increase in the base offense level if the possession of the firearm was in connection with another felony. He also argues that his sentence is unreasonable. 2004 Topeka Police Department Officers Dan Geller and Brad McCarter were in a marked patrol car when Officer McCarter saw Mr. Davis was wanted for questioning and had a warrant outstanding. Davis was running in order to get into position to be able to fire at them. The handgun was later found 1