Legal Opinion
United States v. Darwin Jay Copeland Anthony Antoine Hartwell
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided April 17, 2003No. 01-1005, 01-1016PublishedCited by 194 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED OPINION
COLE, Circuit Judge.
Defendants-Appellants Darwin Jay Copeland and Anthony Antoine Hartwell appeal their convictions and sentences stemming from charges of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846 and for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The defendants collectively raise seven claims on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Copeland and Hartwell (“the defendants”) were alleged to be members of an elaborate drug operation in the Flint, Michigan area.…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by194 opinions
- Burt Lancaster v. Stanley Adams, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. William Anthony Johnson (04-5110/6161) and Christopher L. Stone (04-5146)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. Tony RichardsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. Kelvin Mondale NewsomCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. Anna TrujilloCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
189 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.