United States v. Henry Jerome Hicks

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the November 1, 1992, amendment to § 3E1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines “seems to resolve the confusion’ ’ by requiring that a defendant accept responsibility only for the offense of conviction
• holding that, in the context of a pre-trial motion to suppress, the district court correctly declined to consider defendant’s Fourth Amendment claims where he failed to carry his burden of showing that his own Fourth Amendment rights had been violated
• holding defendant forfeited pretrial suppression argument when he failed to renew the objection during trial
• explaining that, if a defendant renews the suppression issue at trial, appellate courts can consider trial evidence alongside suppression hearing evidence
• observing that when trial evidence casts doubt on a pretrial suppression ruling, the parties should “bring alleged errors to the trial court’s attention by making a proper objection or filing a motion”
• observing that when trial evidence casts doubt on a pretrial suppression ruling, the parties should “bring alleged errors to the trial court’s attention by making a proper objection or filing a motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).