HOWLETT

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Whitfield, 907 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1990)
  …d by our well-established rule that “the government is not required to accept a defendant’s stipulation to [] prior felony conviction[s] in lieu of proof of [those] conviction[s].” United States v. Blade, 811 F. 2d 461, 466 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 839, 108 S.Ct. 124, 98 L.Ed.2d 82 (1987). Whitfield finally argues his sentence was improperly enhanced. We agree. Under section 924(e), a felon in possession of a firearm who has three previous convictions for either violent felonies or serious drug o…
• United States v. Saffeels, 982 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1992)
  …nt’s stipulation to a prior felony conviction in lieu of proving the conviction where, as here, proof of the conviction is a necessary element of the prosecution’s case. See, e.g., United States v. Blade, 811 F. 2d 461, 466 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 839, 108 S.Ct. 124, 98 L.Ed.2d 82 (1987); Rush v. United States, 795 F. 2d 638, 639-40 (8th Cir.1986). Moreover, we have consistently held that it is not error to allow the government to prove multiple convictions even though proof of only one convictio…
• Callwood v. Questel, 883 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1989)
  …erning the most analogous state limitations period for 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claims concerning conspiracies to deny constitutional rights. We, however, spoke implicitly on the issue when, in Pratt v. Thornburgh, 807 F. 2d 355 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 839, 108 S.Ct. 125, 98 L.Ed.2d 83 (1987), we affirmed a district court decision holding that, after Goodman v. Lukens Steel, 482 U.S. 656, 107 S.Ct. 2617, § 1985 actions should also be controlled by the forum state’s limitations period for personal inju…