United States v. Francis Martin Giancola and Charles A. Pifer, II
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Per curiam
This emergency motion for bond pending appeal requires this court to consider for the first time the interpretation of the post-conviction release provision of the recently enacted Bail Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, § 203, 98 Stat1981-82 (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3143), 1 which sets forth a number of conditions that must be met before a district court may grant bail pending appeal. In this case, we are concerned with the meaning of the condition requiring that the appeal “raise[] a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.”
FACTS
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States v. Stanton Miller and Robert MillerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
3Cited by118 opinions
- United States v. Terence George KellyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Grant C. Affleck, United States of America v. Frank Kowalik, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Connie M. HandyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Mark Allan BaykoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- State v. Scott Robertson(075326)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2017
113 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.