Search for: "Almendarez-Torres v. United States"
Results 1 - 20
of 43
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2011, 12:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 2:39 pm
The Third Circuit rejected this argument under Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
29 Sep 2004, 12:28 pm
In United States v. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 1:35 pm
Supreme Court have stated when writing separately that they believe the Court's decision from 1998 in Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 2:26 pm
Regrading an Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 11:29 am
See United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:52 am
United States (10-6117) (both of which had been relisted three times), which presented the question whether Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 2:03 pm
United States, 127 S. [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 12:36 pm
Claims that a jury must determine his prior conviction are rejected (because of United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 1:49 am
United States, 10-5296, and Vazquez v. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 9:31 am
The Supreme Court rejected that argument in Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 6:23 am
Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 8:18 pm
United States and require that facts necessary for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences (not just statutory maximums) be found by juries, it found no need to revisit another longstanding Apprendi wrinkle: the rule in Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
10 Jan 2007, 1:32 pm
For example, Justice Thomas has publicly stated that Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
16 Jun 2005, 11:00 am
Ct. 2531 (2004), United States v. [read post]
13 Oct 2005, 7:06 pm
State, 47 Md. 485; Plumbly v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 10:43 pm
United States, 544 U.S. 13, 27 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("Almendarez-Torres, like Taylor, has been eroded by this Court's subsequent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, and a majority of the Court now recognizes that Almendarez-Torres was wrongly decided. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 12:18 pm
A sentencing enhancement (based on prior convictions) is upheld, because, as usual, the First says that Almendarez-Torres v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:41 am
United States and United States v. [read post]
7 May 2008, 8:43 am
In United States v. [read post]
