United States v. Jorge Guevara

Second Circuit

United States v. Jorge Guevara

298 F.3d 182, 32 F. App'x 8, 32 Fed. Appx. 8, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6861, 2002 WL 1733700

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 2002

DocketDocket 00-1133

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 298 F.3d 182 (United States v. Jorge Guevara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Jorge Guevara, 298 F.3d 182, 32 F. App'x 8, 32 Fed. Appx. 8, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6861, 2002 WL 1733700 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

In its petition for rehearing, the government argues that pursuant to Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), this Court should have undertaken a “causal, evidence-based determination of whether the alleged error affected substantial rights — i.e., whether the alleged procedural error actually affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Gov’t Brief in Support of Petition, 28 n.*. The government fails to recognize that Apprendi runs somewhat counter to Ned-er. Thus Apprendi itself did not undertake a Neder analysis. Nor did our in banc opinion in United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.2001). We conclude that in the circumstances presented in this case as well, Neder does not control. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.

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

DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

In its petition for rehearing, the government argues that pursuant to Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), this Court should have undertaken a “causal, evidence-based determination of whether the alleged error affected substantial rights — i.e., whether the alleged procedural error actually affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Gov’t Brief in Support of Petition, 28 n.*. The government fails to recognize that Apprendi runs somewhat counter to Ned-er. Thus Apprendi itself did not undertake a Neder analysis. Nor did our in banc opinion in United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir.2001). We conclude that in the circumstances presented in this case as well, Neder does not control. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F.3d 182, 32 F. App'x 8, 32 Fed. Appx. 8, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6861, 2002 WL 1733700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jorge-guevara-ca2-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack