LOPEZ

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• Thomas v. State, 439 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
  …review, there is another problem with the appellant’s contention. We agree that a physical display such as that suggested here would not be “testimonial.” See, e.g., United States ex rel. Mitchell v. Pinto, 438 F. 2d 814 (3d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 961, 91 S.Ct. 1622, 29 L.Ed.2d 124 (1971). But see, Machin v. State, 213 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 221 So. 2d 747 (Fla.1968). But that fact does not, ipso facto, render such evidence admissible at trial in the absence of any qualifying pre…
• United States v. Patrick, 542 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1976)
  …ing the defendant’s sentencing. See, e. g., United States v. Schipani, 435 F. 2d 26, 28 (2nd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1198, 28 L.Ed.2d 334 (1971); Verdugo v. United States, 402 F. 2d 599, 610-12 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 961, 91 S.Ct. 1623, 29 L.Ed.2d 124 (1971). . See United States v. Bukowski, 435 F. 2d 1094 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 874, 27 L.Ed.2d 809 (1971); United States ex rel. Robson v. Malone, 412 F. 2d 848 (7th Cir. 1969). . 18 U.…
• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983)
  …essary because the statute defines “narcotic” as including “opium derivatives” and heroin is listed as an opium derivative without distinguishing between L- and D-heroin. See Verdugo v. United States, 402 F. 2d 599, 607 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 961, 91 S.Ct. 1623, 29 L.Ed.2d 124 (1971) (stating that heroin is a narcotic drug as a matter of law). Notwithstanding differences between D-heroin and L-heroin, Congress is free to define them both as narcotics. The district court was not required to…