UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES PHILLIP ELLIOTT, WILLIAM MELHORN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

11th Cir. | 1996-04-24
Nos. 90-3696, 94-2020
Before ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
82 F.3d 989 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 32 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: ORDER AMENDING OPINION The opinion published at 62 F. 3d 1304 (11th Cir.1995) is amended with respect to section IIC1 as follows: (1) on page 1313, the twelfth line of the first paragraph under section IIC1, located on the right side of the page, “named” is deleted and is replaced with “identified”; (2) on page 1314, the nineteenth line of the first full paragraph, located on the left side of the page, “named” is deleted and is replaced with “identified”; (3) on page 1314, the twentieth line of the first full paragraph, located on the left side of the page, following “indictment” and preceding the period and footnote number, add “because their losses have been proved and are the direct result of Elliott and Melhom’s crimes of conviction”; (4) on page 1314, the twenty-first line of the first full paragraph, located on the left side of the page, following “court’s,” add “restitution”; and (5) on page 1314, the twenty-third through the twenty-fourth lines of the first full paragraph, located on the left side of the page, delete “not named in the Amended Indictment” and replace with “whose losses are unsubstantiated and are too attenuated from the crimes of conviction.”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

  • Carmela Ferlanti v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 929 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    …aw.” Maryland v. Louisiana, [*1174] 451 U.S. 725, 746, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981). The principles of federalism dictate that preemption should not be found “unless that is ‘the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” Teper v. Miller, 82 F. 3d 989, 993 (11th Cir.1996) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). “[I]t is the burden of the party claiming Congress intended to preempt state law to prove it.” Video Trax, Inc. v. NationsBank, N…
  • Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Fla. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2009)
    …rst, “[w]e review the ultimate decision of whether to grant a preliminary injunction [only] for abuse of discretion.... ” Owner-Operator Ind. Driver’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Landstar Sys., Inc., 541 F. 3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Teper v. Miller, 82 F. 3d 989, 993 (11th Cir.1996)). “The trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether the situation requires the issuance of ... a [preliminary] injunction and the fact that the appellate court reaches a contrary conclusion does not warrant a r…
  • Lewis v. Brunswick Corp., 107 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1997)
    …by implication because state and federal law actually conflict, so that it is impossible to comply with both, or state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Teper v. Miller, 82 F. 3d 989, 993 (11th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). By including an express preemption clause in the FBSA, Congress has demonstrated its intent that the Act preempt at least some state law. See 46 U.S.C. § 4306. Therefore, the issue in this case is not whe…

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw