ESTRADA

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Shmuel David, 940 F.2d 722 (1st Cir. 1991)
  …o give a proposed instruction which is incorrect, misleading, or incomplete in some material respect. See, e.g., United States v. Silverman, 745 F. 2d 1386, 1396 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Iaciofano, 734 F. 2d 87, 90 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 850, 105 S.Ct. 168, 83 L.Ed.2d 103 (1984); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F. 2d 31, 103 n. 196 (D.C.Cir.1976) (listing cases), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933, 97 S.Ct. 2641, 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977). Toro’s proffered instruction, which declared that the evid…
• United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271 (9th Cir. 1986)
  …64) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969) should apply to this search. This argument clearly ignores dispositive case law on this point. In United States v. Estrada, 733 F. 2d 683 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 850, 105 S.Ct. 168, 83 L.Ed.2d 103 (1984), we agreed with the Fifth Circuit case of United States v. Mendoza, 727 F. 2d 448 (5th Cir.1984) which held that Gates applies to all decisions arising on direct review when Gates was decided. This conclusion wa…
• United States v. Fannin, 817 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …he magistrate’s finding of a “substantial basis” is given great deference. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F. 2d at 1396 (applying a standard of review “less probing than de novo” review); cf. United States v. Estrada, 733 F. 2d 683, 684 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 850, 105 S.Ct. 168, 83 L.Ed.2d 103 (1984) (applying a clearly erroneous standard of review). This court reviews de novo the district court’s finding that a warrant describes with sufficient particularity the items to be seized. United States v. Spilotro…