Opinion

United States v. Hofierka

83 F.3d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 1996

Full text

Opinions in this case

Opinion
Opinion — Per curiam

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Nos. 95-2151, 95-2258. Non-Argument Calendars. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. HOFIERKA, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Carl ANDREWS, a/k/a "Barracuda", Defendant-Appellant. Aug. 28, 1996. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Nos. 93-67-CR-J-20, 88-60-Cr-J-20); Harvey E. Schlesinger, Judge. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon consideration of the appellants' petition for panel rehearing, the same is granted; and the opinion filed in this case on May 16, 1996, and published at 83 F.3d 357 , is modified in one respect. Footnote 7 of the opinion is deleted. In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

United States v. Terrance Wellons

Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2023

United States v. Koretsky Magloire

Eleventh Circuit · Nov 25, 2022

United States v. Brandon Miquel Lewis

Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2022

United States v. Charles Baker, III

Eleventh Circuit · Jul 19, 2021

United States v. Darryl Petlock

Third Circuit · Feb 11, 2021

United States v. Nicholas Martino

Third Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

United States v. Ryan Cate

Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2020

United States v. Judel Jean-Charles

Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2020

United States v. Frederick Tyrone Calhoun

Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 2019

United States v. Antonio Slaton

Eleventh Circuit · Jan 8, 2019

United States v. Newman

M.D. Alabama · Nov 26, 2018

Parentheticals

holding that “[t]he sentence in this case will be presumed valid until it is vacated on direct review or in an appropriate collateral proceeding.”
United States v. Frederick Tyrone Calhoun
affirming district court’s finding that defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release based on a certified copy of defendant’s judgment of conviction alone
United States v. David Subil
applying an abuse-of-discretion standard in a case where the defendant objected below to a sentence exceeding the Chapter 7 range
United States v. Azell Tywon Canty
“A certified copy of a conviction is proper evidence that a defendant violated a state or federal law and, thereby, violated a condition of his or her supervised release.”
United States v. Antonio Slaton
“Because we hold that the Chapter 7 sentencing range is not binding on district courts and that it is within their discretion to exceed this range, it follows that exceeding this range does not constitute a ‘departure.’”
United States v. Nicholas Martino
per 7 In Adedoyin, the defendant at trial curium
United States v. Poellnitz