United States v. Fifer
District Court, C.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Verdict (d/e 140), the Defendant’s Motion for New Trial (d/e 142), the Defendant’s Amended Motion for Acquittal (d/e 160), the Defendant’s Amended Motion for New Trial (d/e 161), and the parties’ briefs on the statutory sentencing range (d/e 171, 172). The Defendant’s Amended Motion for Acquittal (d/e 160) and Amended Motion for New Trial (d/e 161) are DENIED. The Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Verdict (d/e 140) and Motion for New Trial (d/e 142) are DENIED AS MOOT because they are…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Shepard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Descamps v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- United States v. Martinez-SalazarSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Randy WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
- United States v. Logan McCauleyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2020
- United States v. Franklin TorresCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- United States v. Randy WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
- United States v. Randy WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020