Web Results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molina-Martinez_v._United_States

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States Court of Appeals ...

www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/molina-martinez-v-united-states

Holding: Courts reviewing use of an incorrect Federal Sentencing Guidelines range cannot apply a categorical "additional evidence" rule requiring a showing ...

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8913_5h25.pdf

Apr 20, 2016 ... come of the proceeding would have been different, United States v. ... Molina- Martinez could not satisfy Rule 52(b)'s requirement that the.

www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-8913

Jan 12, 2016 ... Saul Molina-Martinez pleaded guilty to being in the United States illegally following deportation proceedings that stemmed from his felony ...

www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/2015_2016_briefs/14-8913.html

Where an error in the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines results in the application of the wrong Guideline range to a criminal defendant, ...

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/14-8913

Jan 12, 2016 ... On August 31, 2012, United States Customs and Border Protection agents arrested petitioner Saul Molina-Martinez (“Molina-Martinez”)—a ...

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-8913

Apr 20, 2016 ... MOLINA-MARTINEZ v. UNITED STATES ( ) : Courts reviewing Guidelines errors cannot apply a categorical “additional evidence” rule in cases, ...

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-8913

Apr 20, 2016 ... On appeal, Molina-Martinez argued for the first time that the range ... that was not intentionally relinquished or abandoned, United States v.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1312223.html

Nov 6, 2006 ... Case opinion for US 5th Circuit UNITED STATES v. MOLINA. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0097-10-0

Mar 24, 2017 ... On March 14, 2017, Plaintiffs, the Molina Healthcare companies, filed a ... for the Government, appeal pending); Moda Health Plan, Inc. v.