Legal Opinion

United States v. Francis Martin Giancola and Charles A. Pifer, II

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided February 15, 1985No. 84-3861PublishedCited by 118 opinions

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

  1. United States v. Stanton Miller and Robert MillerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985

3Cited by118 opinions

  1. United States v. Terence George KellyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
  2. United States v. Grant C. Affleck, United States of America v. Frank Kowalik, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
  3. United States v. Connie M. HandyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  4. United States v. Mark Allan BaykoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
  5. State v. Scott Robertson(075326)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2017

113 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API