CLARK

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• The United States v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 750 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1984)
  …ns for the fine imposed, it is reasonable to believe that he relied on improper motives. This court does not require a judge to elucidate his sentencing rationale.2 United States v. Del Piano, 593 F. 2d 539, 540 (3d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2889, 61 L.Ed.2d 315 (1979). Nor does F & M offer any evidence, other than the speculations of its excellent lawyers, of the judge’s reliance on improper factors in the sentencing process. In short, “aside from characterizing [the fine] as…
• United States v. Mazza, 792 F.2d 1210 (1st Cir. 1986)
  …r during trial, and he offers no explanation for the delay; we therefore consider the argument waived on this appeal. United States v. Eaddy, 595 F. 2d 341, 346 (6th Cir.1979); Christian v. United States, 394 A. 2d 1, 34-39 (D.C.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2889, 61 L.Ed.2d 315 (1979); see also United States v. Scallion, 548 F. 2d 1168, 1174 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 943, 98 S.Ct. 2843, 56 L.Ed.2d 784 (1982); 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 193, at 705-06…
• Phelps v. Duckworth, 772 F.2d 1410 (7th Cir. 1985)
  …helps’ counsel is "not dissatisfied” with respondents’ version of the facts (Pet. 1). . In support of its ruling in Charles, the Supreme Court cited with approval United States v. Agee, 597 F. 2d 350, 354-356 (3d Cir.) (en banc), certiorari denied, 442 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2889, 61 L.Ed.2d 315; United States v. Mireles, 570 F. 2d 1287, 1291-1293 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Goldman, 563 F. 2d 501, 503-504 (1st Cir.1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 1067, 98 S.Ct. 1245, 55 L.Ed.2d 768. . Since the harmle…