LANTRIP

v.

ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Rosenberg, 806 F.2d 1169 (3d Cir. 1986)
  …tatutes “will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses.” Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 84, 75 S.Ct. 620, 622, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955). Thus, in United States v. Gomez, 593 F. 2d 210 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 948, 99 S.Ct. 2172, 60 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1979), we held that consecutive sentences could not be imposed under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute and for the actual d…
• Dobyns v. E-Systems, Inc., 667 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …ir Transportation Security Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1511(a) and (b), to protect against hijacking, the searches involve state action. U.S. v. Davis, 482 F. 2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973). See also U.S. v. Gumerlock, 590 F. 2d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 948, 99 S.Ct. 2173, 60 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1979).7 It surely can be said that the search of the employees’ rooms and wall lockers in the principal case involved a much deeper governmental activity than that involved in the routine airline security measures t…
• United States v. Donaldson, 797 F.2d 125 (3d Cir. 1986)
  …93 F. 2d 210, 213 (3d Cir.) (in banc) (possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute may not be punished separately from offense of actual distribution where both charges are based upon distribution of the same drugs), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 948, 99 S.Ct. 2172, 60 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1979). Like the rule of lenity, the doctrine of pyramiding is based on the principle that any ambiguity in Congress’ expression of its intent to penalize certain conduct must be construed in favor of the defendant.…