WARE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (30 total)

• Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (U.S. 1991)
  …prisonment for violation of drug “super-kingpin” statute); 18 U. S. C. §2114 (1982 ed.) (flat 25-year sentence for armed robbery of a postal carrier) (upheld against due process challenge in United States v. Smith, 602 F. 2d 834 (CA8), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 902 (1979), and Smith v. United States, 284 F. 2d 789, 791 (CA5 1960)). A sentencing scheme providing for “individualized sentences rests not on constitutional commands, but on public policy enacted into statutes.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604-60…
• United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1983)
  …at deliberation and premeditation under § 1111 involve a prior design to commit murder, no particular period of time is necessary for such deliberation and premeditation. See United States v. Blue Thunder, 604 F. 2d 550, 553 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 902, [*393] 100 S.Ct. 215, 62 L.Ed.2d 139 (1979); United States v. Brown, 518 F. 2d 821, 826 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 225, 46 L.Ed.2d 146 (1975). There must be some appreciable time for reflection and consideration before executi…
• United States v. Jules Huppert, 917 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …after the fact. Such an indictment is permissible when the question of whether the defendant is a principal or an accessory is one of fact to be resolved by the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Day, 533 F. 2d 524, 526 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 902, 100 S.Ct. 214, 62 L.Ed.2d 139 (1979). However, the defendant may not be convicted of both. United States v. Willis, 559 F. 2d 443, 444 (5th Cir.1977). In that case the court aptly stated: The gist of being an accessory after the fact lies essenti…