OWENS

v.

WHARTON, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP APPEALS AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Citator

Cited By (55 total)

• United States v. DeLUNA, 763 F.2d 897 (8th Cir. 1985)
  …ntley, 706 F. 2d 1498, 1507 n. 7 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2397, 81 L.Ed.2d 354 (1984); United States v. Kiefer, 694 F. 2d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Singer, 660 F. 2d 1295, 1307 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1156, 102 S.Ct. 1030, 71 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982); United States v. Nelson, 603 F. 2d 42, 46 (8th Cir.1979). Accord United States v. Ammar, 714 F. 2d at 256. The following factors are relevant to the reliability inquiry under the confrontation clause: (1) whet…
• United States v. Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322 (5th Cir. 1983)
  …mmon to its members. See Cagnina, 697 F. 2d at 921 (suggesting that this test conflicts with Fifth Circuit test). Here the enterprise had all of these characteristics. . See United States v. Griffin, 660 F. 2d 996, 999 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1156, 102 S.Ct. 1029, 71 L.Ed.2d 313 (1982); see also Bennett v. Berg, 685 F. 2d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 1982) (“Legal entities are garden-variety ‘enterprises’ which generally pose no problem of separateness from the predicate acts”); Hartley, 678 F. 2d at…
• United States v. Covelli, 738 F.2d 847 (7th Cir. 1984)
  …Nevertheless, the decision of whether or not to grant a mistrial for violation of a witness sequestration rule is a matter within the district court’s discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Womack, 654 F. 2d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1156, 102 S.Ct. 1029, 71 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982). Murray has not demonstrated prejudice sufficient for us to conclude that the district court abused its discretion. III. CONCLUSION We reverse the convictions of Frederick and Murray under Count Three of the…