Legal Opinion
United States v. Joseph Lamont Stokes
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 14, 2002No. 01-30170PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The opinión filed in this case on April 15, 2002, slip op. at 5647 [286 F.3d 1132], is amended by adding a new footnote 2, to be indicated at the end of the first paragraph on slip op. at 5656 [286 F.3d at 1186] (immediately following “... no comparable escape clause”). The footnote is to state:
The sentencing court has been held to have a duty under the ACCA to determine that a prior conviction for burglary was incurred under a statute (or, in rare cases, under jury instructions) containing the required elements of “generic” burglary. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- United States v. KnightsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Stanton v. StantonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Clifford v. Latta v. C. J. FitzharrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Motley v. ParksCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Douglas JensenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Shannon WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Raphyal CrawfordCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. Thomas Cameron KincadeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.