Legal Opinion
United States v. Willy Elmer Sweeten
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 30, 1991No. 90-30343PublishedCited by 109 opinions
1Per curiam
We must review the district court’s decision not to enhance a convicted defendant’s sentence under the mandatory minimum-sentence provision of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, as amended by the Career Criminals Amendment Act of 1986 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1988) (original version enacted as part of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984). Because we agree with the government that the district court’s decision was in error, we vacate and remand for resen-tencing.
I
It is unlawful for any person “who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Miller v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. William George HowardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Kevin J. SherbondyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- United States v. Lucio MoralesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by109 opinions
- United States v. Moses Corona-Sanchez, A/K/A Enrique Sanchez-CoronaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Darrel Duane GriselCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Aguila-Montes De OcaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Jose Reyes Ruiz-Vidal v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard BONAT, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.