Legal Opinion
United States v. Whitlock
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 28, 2011No. 10-30124PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FISHER, Circuit Judge:
We held in United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 638-39 (9th Cir.2007), that “sentencing procedures for probation and supervised release violations are primarily governed by Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not Rule 32.” (Emphasis added.) This case presents a situation where Rule 32.1 does not speak to the particular question at issue — whether probation officers’ sentencing recommendations following the revocation of supervised release must be disclosed. We conclude that Rule 32(e)(3) logically fills in the gap. Therefore, like…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Chapman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Swarthout v. CookeSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- United States v. Fred James Lemay, IIICourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Nurre v. WhiteheadCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- United States v. Marcial-SantiagoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- United States v. Christina RicheyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
- Sprouse v. RyanDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2017
- United States v. John DanielsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Richards v. County of YoloDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2011
- United States v. Antonio Urrutia-ContrerasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.