Legal Opinion

United States v. McIntosh

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided January 16, 2002No. 00-50966PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:

Primarily at issue is whether a recent amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines is a clarifying amendment and should be applied retroactively. David McIntosh also claims, inter alia: denial of due process and insufficient evidence. AFFIRMED.

I

In 1993, McIntosh began employment at Austin Jones, established by Sidney Kat-chem (a co-defendant who testified on behalf of the Government) to solicit investments in oil and gas wells. McIntosh was an officer of the company; he maintained the bank account records and client files and was a signatory on…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Pereira v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  4. Leslie Wayne Yohey v. James A. Collins, Director Department of Criminal Justice Institutional DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
  5. United States v. CalverleyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. GrantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Commonwealth v. BomarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. United States v. Edwin Edwards Stephen Edwards Cecil Brown Andrew Martin Bobby JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002
  4. United States v. Francisco D. Pineiro, Also Known as Frank PineiroCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
  5. United States v. Norberto AlanizCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API