FRANKLIN

v.

MISSOURI

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002)
  …o the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, reviewing the court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo. United States v. Gil, 204 F. 3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 951, 121 S.Ct. 357, 148 L.Ed.2d 287 (2000). We conclude that the district court did not err in ruling that the Coast Guard acted consistently with the Fourth Amendment when it stopped and boarded the vessel in this case. Under the Fourth Amendment, the…
• United States v. Ortiz, 318 F.3d 1030 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …ive or likely to deceive a licensed firearms dealer; (4) and the false statement was a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or disposition of the firearm. Id.; see United States v. Nelson, 221 F. 3d 1206, 1210 n. 6 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 951, 121 S.Ct. 356, 148 L.Ed.2d 286 (2000); United States v. Polk, 118 F. 3d 286, 294-95 (5th Cir.1997). The identity of the actual purchaser is clearly “a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). See Unit…
• United States v. Rhind, 289 F.3d 690 (11th Cir. 2002)
  …standard of review, reviewing the district court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, and the district court’s application of the law to those facts de novo. United States v. Gil, 204 F. 3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 951, 121 S.Ct. 357, 148 L.Ed.2d 287 (2000). This court reviews the district court’s application and interpretation of the sentencing guidelines under the de novo standard of review, but reviews its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Har…