United States v. Hatcher

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Hatcher

142 F. App'x 956

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 2005

DocketNos. 02-1308WM, 02-1709WM, 02-1723WM, 01-1701WM, 02-1710WM, 02-2068WM, 02-1704WM, 02-1722WM, 02-3582WM

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 F. App'x 956 (United States v. Hatcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Hatcher, 142 F. App'x 956 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a previous opinion in this case, United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir.2003), we held the bulk of appellants’ arguments lacked merit, but remanded so the district court could determine whether tape-recorded conversations between various cooperating witnesses and their attorneys should have been turned over to the defense. We retained jurisdiction to consider the result of the district court’s inquiry, and it has now certified to us it has reached a conclusion. On remand, the district court concluded appellants were not prejudiced by the non-disclosures. We conclude the district court properly resolved this claim and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

The order and judgment of the district court are affirmed in all respects.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In a previous opinion in this case, United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir.2003), we held the bulk of appellants’ arguments lacked merit, but remanded so the district court could determine whether tape-recorded conversations between various cooperating witnesses and their attorneys should have been turned over to the defense. We retained jurisdiction to consider the result of the district court’s inquiry, and it has now certified to us it has reached a conclusion. On remand, the district court concluded appellants were not prejudiced by the non-disclosures. We conclude the district court properly resolved this claim and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

The order and judgment of the district court are affirmed in all respects.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. App'x 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hatcher-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack