Legal Opinion

United States v. Agramonte

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided April 28, 2005No. CRIM. 99-43PLF, CIV.A. 022531PLFPublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on defendant Pedro Agramonte’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Agramonte’s motion and memoranda allege three errors which he contends require that his conviction be vacated and the case be scheduled for a new trial. See Memorandum in Support of Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion at 4-19. Specifically, Agramonte claims that (1) the Court erred by admitting evidence of other crimes, (2) the Court improperly instructed the jury to consider that evidence, and (3) Agramonte…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  5. Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. United States v. MitchellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
  2. United States v. KingDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
  3. Jones v. HoltDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
  4. United States v. MorrowDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
  5. United States v. BurwellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015

21 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