CLEMENT

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998)
  …96). (It acknowledged that this interpretation of Lane did not accord with that of the Second and Ninth Circuits in United States v. Parker, 952 F. 2d 31 (CA2 1991), [*7] and Robbins v. Christianson, 904 P. 2d 492 (CA 91990).) We granted certiorari. 520 U. S. 1165 (1997). II The District Court’s conclusion that Spencer’s release from prison caused his petition to be moot because it no longer satisfied the “in custody” requirement of the habeas statute was in error. Spencer was incarcerated by reason of the…
• Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1997)
  …at court held, following HaVper, that the actual fines imposed by the Government were not so grossly disproportional to the proved damages to the Government as to render the sanctions “punishment” for double jeopardy purposes. We granted certiorari, 520 U. S. 1165 (1997), because of concerns about the wide variety of novel double jeopardy claims spawned in the wake of Halper. We now affirm, but for different reasons. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no “person [shall] be subject for the same offence…
• Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1998)
  …., at 1038-1039 (citing International Union Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers v. NLRB, 41 F. 3d 1532 (CADC 1994); Nielsen v. International Assn. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 94 F. 3d 1107 (CA7 1996), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1165 (1997)). The Ninth Circuit’s resolution of this issue is in tension with the decisions of two other Courts of Appeals. See, e.g., Buzenius v. [*42] NLRB, 124 F. 3d 788 (CA6 1997), cert. pending, No. 97-945; Bloom v. NLRB, 30 F. 3d 1001 (CA8 1994).…