UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
THERMON PHILLIPS, E.B. RICH, USX CORPORATION A/K/A UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
The opinion published at 19 F. 3d 1565 (11th Cir.1994) is amended as follows to correct a clerical error: 1. The number “1108” is deleted and is replaced with “1028” in the following sentences: (a)the final sentence of the third paragraph on page 1583 (located on the right side of the page below the block quote portion of the paragraph); (b) the second and third sentences of the fourth paragraph on page 1583 (located on the bottom right side of the page); (c) the first and third sentences of the first paragraph on page 1584 (located on the left side of the page).
2. The second sentence of the first paragraph on page 1584 (located on the left side of the page) is amended to read: Under this interpretation, sections 1131 and 1028 serve distinct purposes; the term “willfully” as used in section 1131 ensures that the act was done voluntarily and not by accident or mistake; and section 1028 provides the proper scope of defenses in accordance with the codified “prudent man” standard as determined by Congress.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Almeida v. State, 737 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999)…e United States v. D.F., 115 F. 3d 413, 416 (7th Cir.1997) (“An appeals court, emphasized the Supreme Court, ‘should give due weight to a trial court’s finding that an officer was credible and the inference was reasonable.’ ”); Medina v. Singletary, 59 F. 3d 1095, 1101 (11th Cir.1995) (“We review the district court’s findings of historical fact for clear error.... ”); Lord v. Duckworth, 29 F. 3d 1216, 1220 (7th Cir.1994) (“Ordinarily we treat a state court’s conclusion as to whether a suspect invoked his Mir…1 / 2
-
State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…105, 96 S.Ct. 321. Nor did the officers “per-sistí ] in repeated efforts to wear down [Pitts’] resistance and make him change his mind.” Id. at 105-06, 96 S.Ct. 321. A similar scenario was addressed by the Eleventh Circuit in Medina v. Singletary, 59 F. 3d 1095 (11th Cir.1995). In that ease, after Medina had been read his Miranda rights, he “indicated that he understood his rights and that he was willing to talk with the detectives.” 59 F. 3d at 1102. “Following [a] lengthy preliminary conversation with Me…
-
Knight v. State, 923 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2005)…tency and competency hearings were held. (RSR 1676-1996, RST 75-102). He was again evaluated after an outburst. (RST 174-219). Additionally, competency could have been but was not raised on appeal and it is procedurally barred. Medina v. Singletary, 59 F. 3d 1095, 1111 (11th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, this claim is denied without an evidentiary hearing. CLAIM XXVII MR. MUHAMMAD’S EIGHT AMENDMENT RIGHTS AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WILL BE VIOLATED AS MR. MUHAMMAD MAY BE INCOMPETENT AT THE TIME OF EX…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Thermon Phillips, 19 F.3d 1565 (11th Cir. 1994)