D.C. Circuit· 7/8/1997
United States v. Robert Anthony Studevent
Citations
- 116 F.3d 1559
- 325 U.S. App. D.C. 383
- 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 17043
- 1997 WL 370178
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the government’s conduct in a criminal investigation was entitled to the presumption of regularity in the absence of “clear evidence to the contrary”
- affirming a sentence based upon intended loss pursuant to a precursor to 5 § 2B1.1
- \[I]ntended loss under applica- tion note [8] to Guidelines section 2F1.1 is not limited to an amount that was possible or likely.\
- \It is the defendant's duty to elicit the reasons for refusing to grant a downward departure . . . .\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Wald, Henderson, Tatel
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United States v. Robert B. MillerFourth Circuit· 2003-01-14· cited 117×
- United States v. Martin GeeversThird Circuit· 2000-08-18· cited 74×
- United States v. Vincent LaneSeventh Circuit· 2003-03-24· cited 71×
- United States v. Thomas F. Stockheimer, Leonard A. Peth, Harry Days and Mark Van DykeSeventh Circuit· 1998-09-28· cited 63×
- United States v. Klat, Susan ViolaD.C. Circuit· 1998-09-22· cited 59×
- Riggs National Corp. & Subsidiaries v. CommissionerD.C. Circuit· 2002-07-12· cited 35×
- United States v. Warren Elvin EnsmingerTenth Circuit· 1999-04-19· cited 26×
- Cayuga Nation v. BernhardtD.C. Circuit· 2019-03-11· cited 25×
- United States v. OatesFifth Circuit· 1997-09-04· cited 21×
- United States v. Bolla, StevenD.C. Circuit· 2003-10-24· cited 20×
- United States v. Shou Z. MeiSeventh Circuit· 2003-01-09· cited 13×
- United States v. Charles Henry KlisserSecond Circuit· 1999-08-24· cited 7×
- United States v. Bae, Soo YoungD.C. Circuit· 2001-05-25· cited 6×
- United States v. EnsmingerTenth Circuit· 1999-04-19
- United States v. MillerFourth Circuit· 2003-01-14
- United States v. Mei, Shou Z.Seventh Circuit· 2003-01-09
- United States v. Lane, VincentSeventh Circuit· 2003-03-24
- Cayuga Nation v. ZinkeDistrict of Columbia· 2019-03-12
- Paracha v. BushDistrict of Columbia· 2019-10-18
Cites
25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. YoungSupreme Court· 1985-02-20· cited 4,689×
- Stinson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1993-05-03· cited 2,230×
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court· 1926-10-11· cited 1,033×
- United States v. MezzanattoSupreme Court· 1995-01-18· cited 504×
- United States v. Moyosore Ismoila Segun Debowale Nuratu Lawanson, United States of America v. Moyosore IsmoilaFifth Circuit· 1997-01-02· cited 183×
- United States v. Jimmy Lee Williams, United States of America v. Jimmy Lee WilliamsFourth Circuit· 1996-04-24· cited 111×
- United States v. Robert Coffman, Jerry Beller, and Thresher T. RippeySeventh Circuit· 1996-09-19· cited 99×
- United States v. RobinsonNinth Circuit· 1996-09-04· cited 96×
- United States v. KoenigNinth Circuit· 1991-12-19· cited 93×
- United States v. Caroll A. WatkinsSixth Circuit· 1993-06-01· cited 90×
- United States v. Gary E. GalbraithTenth Circuit· 1994-06-24· cited 88×
- United States v. Shannon O. Pinnick A/K/A Scott A. BishopD.C. Circuit· 1995-02-14· cited 86×
- United States v. Richard S. HoliusaSeventh Circuit· 1994-01-05· cited 82×
- United States v. Lloyd R. HaggertFirst Circuit· 1992-11-20· cited 76×
- United States of America, and Cross-Appellant v. Jerry Santiago, and Cross-AppelleeTenth Circuit· 1993-01-26· cited 73×
- United States v. Jose LopezD.C. Circuit· 1991-06-28· cited 64×
- United States v. DozieFourth Circuit· 1994-06-13· cited 56×
- United States v. Muhammad KhanSixth Circuit· 1992-07-14· cited 36×
- United States v. Sheila K. SmawD.C. Circuit· 1994-05-13· cited 35×
- United States v. Walter Robert Foster, IIID.C. Circuit· 1993-03-26· cited 32×
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.