From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Oct 2, 2000
531 U.S. 867 (2000)

Summary

determining there was an obvious clerical error where the felony judgment findings of aggravating and mitigating factors form was inconsistent with the trial court's actual findings

Summary of this case from State v. Shuford

Opinion

OCTOBER 2, 2000


99-10212 BARNETT v. TEXAS. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

99-10213 CALDWELL v. UNITED STATES. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 210 F.3d 373.

99-10214 SETLIFF v. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Sup.Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

99-10216 ACEVEDO v. GARRAGHTY, WARDEN. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 208 F.3d 208.

99-10217 CORDOVA-GONZALEZ v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. C.A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

99-10218 BELL v. NORTH DAKOTA. Sup.Ct. N.D. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 N.W.2d 232.

99-10219 BALL v. IOWA. Sup.Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 N.W.2d 602.

99-10220 COX v. BOWLEN, WARDEN. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

99-10222 GELL v. NORTH CAROLINA. Sup.Ct. N.C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 351 N.C. 192, 524 S.E.2d 332.

99-10223 DEERE v. LINDSEY, WARDEN, ET AL. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

99-10224 MYERS v. MICHIGAN. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

99-10225 GARCIA v. UNITED STATES; and

99-10266 URIBE v. UNITED STATES. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 211 F.3d 593.

99-10226 HAMILTON v. UNITED STATES. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 208 F.3d 1165.

99-10227 TAYLOR v. HANKS, SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


Summaries of

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Oct 2, 2000
531 U.S. 867 (2000)

determining there was an obvious clerical error where the felony judgment findings of aggravating and mitigating factors form was inconsistent with the trial court's actual findings

Summary of this case from State v. Shuford

stating that “[t]he trial court made appropriate inquiries into evidentiary issues, asked questions designed to promote a proper understanding of the testimony, and generally supervised and controlled the course of the trial and the scope and manner of witness examination with care and prudence”

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson
Case details for

Certiorari Denied

Case Details

Full title:CERTIORARI DENIED

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 2, 2000

Citations

531 U.S. 867 (2000)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Severino

We expect "strict compliance" with these requirements. United States v. Hamilton, 208 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th…

U.S. v. Severino

The statute merely "ensures proper notice so a defendant is able to challenge the information [and] make an…