Legal Opinion
United States v. Vogl
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided July 7, 2004No. 03-1132PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Rocky Vogl (“Defendant”) entered a conditional plea of guilty to a charge of cultivating marijuana, and then appealed in part on the ground that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act had been violated. We held that the district court had erred in finding an “ends of justice” continuance under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), and remanded for the court to determine whether Defendant’s speedy trial clock had expired. See United States v. Vogl, 49 Fed.Appx. 861 (10th Cir.2002). On remand, the district court held that the Speedy Trial Act had not been violated. Defendant now appeals…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Henderson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. TorresCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- United States v. AppersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. TinklenbergSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- United States v. HillsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- United States v. Rick K. VoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Abdush-ShakurCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.