FISCHER

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492 (11th Cir. 1993)
  …th a discretionary provision concerning the government's filing a 5K1.1 motion. See, e.g., Conner, 930 F. 2d at 1075; United States v. Vargas, 925 F. 2d 1260, 1266 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Rexach, 896 F. 2d 710, 714 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 969, 111 S.Ct. 433, 112 L.Ed.2d 417 (1990). Wade clarified “that a claim that a defendant merely provided substantial assistance will not entitle a defendant to a remedy or even to discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Nor would additional but generali…
• United States v. Cantero, 995 F.2d 1407 (7th Cir. 1993)
  …ice of appeal was filed on January 22, 1992. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) provides the notice of appeal "must be filed ‘within ten days after the entry of’ the order appealed from.” United States v. Kimberlin, 898 F. 2d 1262, 1267 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 969, 111 S.Ct. 434, 112 L.Ed.2d 417 (1990). Entry of the order is defined as entry on the docket. Id. The sentence was docketed on February 4, 1992, thus making the notice of appeal filed on January 22, 1992 timely. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) (permitting the…
• United States v. Salcido-Contreras, 990 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1993)
  …alcido asserts, we interpret plea agreements according to principles of contract law. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262-63, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498-99, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); United States v. Rexach, 896 F. 2d 710, 713 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 969, 111 S.Ct. 433, 112 L.Ed.2d 417 (1990). Contractual principles, however, do not support Salcido’s attempt to have his cake and eat it, too. He contends, in essence, that a government breach, assuming it occurred, permits him to ignore his obligation…