Legal Opinion
United States v. Risquet
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 5, 2006No. Civ.A. 05-363-4PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
KATZ, District Judge.
Defendant Pedro Risquet has brought several pro se motions seeking to dismiss his indictment for lack of jurisdiction. In each instance, this court denied Defendant’s motion. 1 Said motions were denied for the following reasons.
Procedural Background
On June 29, 2005, a sealed indictment was returned charging Defendant and seven other individuals with drug distribution charges in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846. On that same day a bench warrant was issued for Defendant’s arrest. Defendant retained private counsel on July 18, 2005, but his attorney…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Tafflin v. LevittSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission IndiansSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Pennsylvania v. NelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- United States v. James A. EssigCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Terrance ColesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. TonyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
- Cardenas-Celestino v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 2008
- United States v. PottsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Benjamin v. MinerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- United States v. ArmijoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.