Legal Opinion

United States v. Fifer

District Court, C.D. Illinois

Decided May 18, 2016No. Case No. 14-30006PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Shepard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  4. Descamps v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. United States v. Martinez-SalazarSupreme Court of the United States · 2000

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. Randy WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
  2. United States v. Logan McCauleyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2020
  3. United States v. Franklin TorresCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
  4. United States v. Randy WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
  5. United States v. Randy WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API