ROSS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (28 total)

• United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984)
  …trial purposes have generally held that the applicable date is the date on which the appellate court issues its mandate. United States v. Mack, 669 F. 2d 28, 33 (1st Cir.1982); United States v. Ross, 654 F. 2d 612, 616 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 926, 102 S.Ct. 1290, 71 L.Ed.2d 470 (1982); United States v. Cook, 592 F. 2d 877, 880 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 921, 99 S.Ct. 2847, 61 L.Ed.2d 289 (1979); cf. United States v. Gilliss, 645 F. 2d 1269, 1276 (8th Cir.1981) (noting Guidelines use…
• United States v. Samuelson, 697 F.2d 255 (8th Cir. 1983)
  …relating to Samuelson’s actions. Furthermore, “[i]t is for the jury to resolve questions about conflicting evidence and questions as to the weight and credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Todd, 657 F. 2d 212, 216 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 926, 102 S.Ct. 1288, 71 L.Ed.2d 469 (1982). We are more troubled by Samuelson’s contention that the conspiracy and substantive drug charges are lesser included offenses of the continuing criminal enterprise, and that if his conviction for engaging in a…
• United States v. Salvador, 740 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1984)
  …relevant facts.” United States v. Cawley, 630 F. 2d at 1348. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. at 509-10, 98 S.Ct. at 832; United States v. Armstrong, 654 F. 2d 1328, 1333 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1157, 102 S.Ct. 1032, 71 L.Ed.2d 315 and 455 U.S. 926 (1982). Although the jury is obligated to decide the case solely on the evidence, it became apparent to the court upon receipt of the second jury note that one of its members steadfastly declined to attend to that duty. Agreement by the jury as to…