URIARTE

v.

UNITED STATES; AND RAMIREZ-URIARTE V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1979)
  …. 78-160, but limited to the questions whether 25 U. S. C. § 194 is applicable in the circumstances of this litigation, in particular with respect to the State of Iowa, and whether federal or state law governs the substantive aspects of these cases. 439 U. S. 963 (1978).13 [*664] We are in partial, but serious, disagreement with the Court of Appeals, and vacate its judgment. II Petitioners challenge on several grounds the Court of Appeals’ construction and application of § 194 to these cases.14 First, they…
• Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1979)
  …statute operated as a prior restraint on speech and that the State’s interest in protecting the identity of the juvenile offender did not overcome the heavy presumption against the constitutionality of such prior restraints. We granted certiorari. 439 U. S. 963 (1978). (2) Respondents urge this Court to hold that because § 49-7-3 requires court approval prior to publication of the juvenile’s name it operates as a “prior restraint” on speech.1 See Nebraska [*101] Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976…
• United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …ific uncharged jackpot cheating incidents, admissibility need not hinge on Rule 404(b) because it was admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy charged in Count XIX. See United States v. Uriarte, 575 F. 2d 215, 216-17 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 963, 99 S.Ct. 449, 58 L.Ed.2d 421 (1978); United States v. Testa, 548 F. 2d 847, 851 (9th Cir.1977). In any event, the evidence was clearly admissible under Rule 404(b) as proof of a plan or scheme or to show modus operandi. As we stated in United State…