Legal Opinion

United States v. Michael Hendricks Jaysen Ringling, A/K/A John Kasell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided March 19, 1993No. 92-6271PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ERVIN, Chief Judge:

Michael Ringling appeals from a denial by the district court of his motion to enforce the plea agreement which he had entered into with the United States. He alleged that the Government had breached its agreement in two respects. Ringling raises two issues on appeal: (1) did the district court err when it denied his motion to enforce the plea agreement?; (2) did the district court err in holding that the promise of an Assistant United States Attorney did not bind the entire United States Attorney’s office? We agree with Ringling’s assertions as to the plea agreement,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. United States v. Michael Lee HarveyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. United States v. George R. BlickCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
  2. United States v. Tyronski JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
  3. United States v. PoindexterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
  4. United States v. James McQueenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
  5. United States v. Miguel PegleraCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994

53 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