RAKES

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Thompson, 492 F.2d 359 (8th Cir. 1974)
  …all that he would shoot unless they did his bidding was quite ample for the trier to conclude that' unless the threat alone was enough, the defendant intended bodily harm. Shaffer v. United States, 308 F. 2d 654, 655 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 939, 83 S.Ct. 1544, 10 L.Ed.2d 694 (1963). . If the government is correct in its interpretation of Shaffer, we refuse to follow that decision. . 18 U.S.C. § 1153 provides in part: * * * As used in this section, the offenses of * *. * assault with a d…
• Holloway aka ALI v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999)
  …minal-law system characterized by plea bargaining, where they will predictably be used for in terrorem effect. I respectfully dissent. The one case the Government has come up with is Shaffer v. United States, 308 F. 2d 654 (CA5 1962), cert. denied, 373 U. S. 939 (1963), which upheld a conviction of assault “with intent to do bodily harm” where the defendant had said that if any persons tried to leave the building within five minutes after his departure “he would shoot their heads off,” 308 F. 2d, at 655. In…
• United States v. Paul C. "Paulie" Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1987)
  …ncing. This is now covered by the requirement in Fed.R.Crim.P. 43 that the defendant be present at sentencing unless his punishment is to be reduced under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. See Rakes v. United States, 309 F. 2d 686, 687 (4th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 939, 83 S.Ct. 1543, 10 L.Ed.2d 694 (1963). The history of the presence privilege was traced in United States v. Gregorio, 497 F. 2d 1253 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024, 95 S.Ct. 501, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974). There a defendant challenged his conv…