LEWIS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Gray, 260 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …ncluding the cash within) and the subsequent partial closure. Again, the Hobbs Act requires nothing more than a minimal effect on commerce. Finally, Gray’s reliance on United States v. Frost, 77 F. 3d 1319 (11th Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 1226, 117 S.Ct. 1816, 137 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1997), is misplaced. Among other clear distinctions, Frost did not involve a completed robbery of an ongoing business unquestionably participating in interstate commerce; instead, it involved an attempted extortion…
• United States v. ROY, 761 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2014)
  …he reputation of judicial proceedings is vacating a criminal conviction because of what laymen properly call a technicality, that is, a technical defect which made no practical difference in the particular case.”) (quotation marks omitted), vacated, 520 U.S. 1226, 117 S.Ct. 1816, 137 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1997). Any rule that requires us as judges to decide a case by pretending that something exists, when we as men and women know that it does not, risks undermining the public’s confidence in the administration of…
• Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M. Martinac & Co., 521 U.S. 1136 (U.S. 1997)
  …[*1136] 520 U. S. 875; 520 U. S. 1226; 520 U. S. 1229; 520 U. S. 1251; 520 U. S. 1265; 520 U. S. 1231; 520 U. S. 1241; [*1137] No. 96-6480. No. 96-7748. No. 96-7796. No. 96-7937. No. 96-7980. No. 96-8086. No. 96-8172. No. 96-8250. No. 96-8288. No. 96-8289. No. 96-8292. No. 96-8294. No.…