United States v. Hitchcock
298 F.3d 1021, 2002 WL 1770516
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 21, 2002·No. No. 00-10251·Published·Cited by 23 cases
Opinion
ORDER
The Amended Opinion United States v. Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.2002), filed March 21, 2002, is amended as follows:
At 286 F.3d at 1073, amend the last two sentences in the paragraph before the "Conclusion" to read:
"Hitchcock's argument is foreclosed by Harris v. United States, - U.S. 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), and our prior precedent. It is now clear that mandatory minimums do not implicate Apprendi. Id."
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Hitchcock, 298 F.3d 1021, 2002 WL 1770516 (9th Cir. 2002).
298 F.3d 1021 (United States v. Hitchcock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Michael Dreyer
767 F.3d 826 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC. v. Silva
809 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (E.D. California, 2011)
Scott v. Jackson County
260 P.3d 744 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2011)
United States v. Paul Butts
357 F. App'x 850 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Scott v. Jackson County
297 F. App'x 623 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
State v. Teal
188 P.3d 927 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 2008)
United States v. Hurd
499 F.3d 963 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Kenny v. Easley
166 F. App'x 898 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Scott v. Jackson County
403 F. Supp. 2d 999 (D. Oregon, 2005)
United States v. Labrada-Bustamante
428 F.3d 1252 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Armando Labrada-Bustamante, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Catalino Baranda-Gallardo, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. United States of America v. Roberto Duarte-Cruz
428 F.3d 1252 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
State v. Gonsalves
119 P.3d 597 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2005)
United States v. Anthony Toliver, AKA T, United States of America v. Anthony Brian Patterson, AKA Brian Patterson, AKA Little Ant
351 F.3d 423 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Escobar-Apantenco
56 F. App'x 306 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Mora-Vasquez
46 F. App'x 534 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Hermanek
47 F. App'x 439 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Padilla
44 F. App'x 286 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Renteria
45 F. App'x 612 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Ortiz-Partida
44 F. App'x 239 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Mark Steven Hitchcock
298 F.3d 1021 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)