Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Third Circuit· 10/5/2011

United States v. Daniel Siddons

Citations

  • 660 F.3d 699
  • 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20134
  • 2011 WL 4582502

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • describing the defendant's \substantial burden\ under Fed R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2) if he seeks to withdraw an accepted plea
  • stating that “the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution prohibits application of a law enacted after the date of the offense that inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed” and that “[t]he ex post facto inquiry has two prongs: (1
  • plenary review applies to a district court’s legal interpretation and application of the Guidelines
  • “[D]etermination of loss . . . is never confined to the date of the charged mailing or wiring, but always encompasses all relevant conduct that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rendell, Jordan, Barry

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Daniel Siddons

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.