Legal Opinion
United States v. Sheela
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided August 27, 1987No. CR85-182, CR85-278 and CR86-53PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARSH, District Judge.
Defendants Ma Anand Sheela and Ma Anand Puja move for withdrawal of their post-sentence reports or alternatively for excision of allegedly false and misleading information from the same reports. The motion is denied for the reasons that follow.
On July 22, 1986 defendants Sheela and Puja appeared and entered pleas of guilty to conspiracy for illegal wiretapping and tampering with consumer products. These pleas were the result of plea negotiations between defendants, the United States and the State of Oregon. Under the provisions of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1) each…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ramesh Solomon v. Robert I. Elsea, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- United States v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Wayne Wilburn MaynardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- United States v. Guy Robin EdwardsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- United States v. Thomas MittelsteadtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Stephen Larned EngsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. AngiuloCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Garvis Eugene FreenyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- United States v. AngiuloCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995