BECK

v.

TAYLOR, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …son does not challenge the first element of the Bourjaily standard, which requires that the Government establish the existence of a conspiracy. . Dickerson argues that United States v. West, 142 F. 3d 1408 (11th Cir.1998), vacated on other grounds, 526 U.S. 1155, 119 S.Ct. 2042, 144 L.Ed.2d 211 (1999), mandates reversal. Because we determine that the District Court, unlike the trial court in West, did make the factual findings required under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), we reject Dickerson’s argument. . See U.S. El…
• United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …01(d)(2)(E)] for abuse of discretion, and the court’s factual findings that the requirements of rule 801(d)(2)(E) were met under the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. West, 142 F. 3d 1408, 1413 (11th Cir.1998), vacated on other grounds, 526 U.S. 1155, 119 S.Ct. 2042, 144 L.Ed.2d 211 (1999). We also review the district court’s application of Rule 401 and Rule 403 under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Tinoco, 304 F. 3d 1088, 1121 (11th Cir.2002). Near the end of the Moore-Alst…
• United States v. Matthews, 411 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …01(d)(2)(E)] for abuse of discretion, and the court’s factual findings that the requirements of rule 801(d)(2)(E) were met under the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. West, 142 F. 3d 1408, 1413 (11th Cir.1998), vacated on other grounds, 526 U.S. 1155, 119 S.Ct. 2042, 144 L.Ed.2d 211 (1999). We also review the district court’s application of Rule 401 and Rule 403 under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Tinoco, 304 F. 3d 1088, 1121 (11th Cir.2002). Near the end of the Moore-Alst…