MCCOLLOUGH ET UX.
v.
A. G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC.; MCFARLAND V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP. ET AL.; LAFLAMME V. SPECTOR ET AL.; RODRIGUEZ V. KINCHELOE; FERDIK V. WOODS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ET AL.; MCAFEE V. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DESHIELDS V. LOVE, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT HUNTINGDON
MCCOLLOUGH ET UX.
A. G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC.; MCFARLAND V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP. ET AL.; LAFLAMME V. SPECTOR ET AL.; RODRIGUEZ V. KINCHELOE; FERDIK V. WOODS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ET AL.; MCAFEE V. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DESHIELDS V. LOVE, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT HUNTINGDON
507 U.S. 1012
Supreme Court of the United States (1993)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Garcia, 208 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2000)…6 (10th Cir.1994). In short, the key to a finding of obstruction is the intention of the actor, not the actual success of his obstructive acts. United States v. Revel, 971 F. 2d 656, 660-661 (11th Cir.1992) cert. denied in Pullam v. United States, 507 U.S. 1012, 113 S.Ct. 1665, 123 L.Ed.2d 283; cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1023, 113 S.Ct. 1828, 123 L.Ed.2d 457. Appellant’s final argument is that the sentencing court erred in finding that he had failed to show the acceptance of responsibility for his offense tha…