Legal Opinion

United States v. Stancell

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided December 2, 2004No. CRIM. 02-0374(PLF)PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant Jean Stancell’s motion to modify her conditions of supervised release and defendant Silvader Denise Estep’s motion to modify and reduce her sentence. Both motions have as their basis the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Both defendants agree that their motions should be treated as motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Upon consideration of defendants’ motions, the government’s oppositions and defendant Stancell’s…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Makinson v. LampertCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. State v. Dille, 2006-Ca-10 (7-3-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. State v. Wagner, 06-Ca-73 (7-9-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. State v. Fletcher, 07ca103 (12-31-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. State v. Krouskoupf, Ct2006-0067 (11-30-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

1 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