TAMAYO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Santiago, 828 F.2d 866 (1st Cir. 1987)
  …ef is foreclosed to defendants who have been given access to the presentence report but have failed specifically to challenge the accuracy of information contained within it.” See also United States v. Kadota, 757 F. 2d 198 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 839, 106 S.Ct. 120, 88 L.Ed.2d 98 (1985) (where defendant declined to address the court at sentencing, denial of Rule 35 motion was not an abuse of discretion). Similarly, in United States v. Heller, 797 F. 2d 41, 43 (1st Cir.1986), this court stated,…
• United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988)
  …andidate is on the ballot. Anderson, 417 U.S. at 227-28, 94 S.Ct. at 2263-64; see United States v. Olinger, 759 F. 2d 1293, 1301-05 (7th Cir.) (violation of § 241 may be found in a purely local election where state action is involved), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 839, 106 S.Ct. 120, 88 L.Ed.2d 98 (1985); United States v. Anderson, 481 F. 2d 685, 698-701 (4th Cir.1973) (same), aff'd on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974). State action may be present in this case through the defendants…