U.S. v. Armstrong, s. 93-50031

Citation88 F.3d 831
Decision Date11 July 1996
Docket NumberNos. 93-50031,93-50057,s. 93-50031
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher Lee ARMSTRONG, aka: Chris Armstrong, Defendant, and Robert Rozelle; Aaron Hampton; Freddie Mack; Shelton Auntwan Martin, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

Prior report: --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687.

Before BROWNING, WALLACE, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, D.W. NELSON, CANBY, REINHARDT, LEAVY, RYMER, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This case is remanded to the district court of proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Odeh v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • March 30, 2015
    ...must show that the prosecution "'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'" United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 466 (1996) (quoting Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985)). This requires a petitioner to show both (1) that "similarly ......
  • Deas v. United States, 3:12-cv-00275(SRU)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 11, 2014
    ...decides to prosecute a specific defendant because of race, religion, or some other impermissible basis. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464-65 (1996). There is a strong presumption that prosecutors have properly discharged their duties and courts are reluctant to challenge tho......
  • ZIMMERMAN v. POLY PREP COUNTRY DAY Sch.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 13, 2011
    ...privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute," but rather a "qualified privilege or immunity." United States v. Armstrong. 517 U.S. 456, 474 (1996) (quoting United States v. Nobles. 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975)): see also Hickman v. Taylor. 329 U.S. at 510; Gonzalez v. Citv ......
  • Wilson v. Sandor, Case No. CV 12-1536-OP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • March 7, 2014
    ...in violation of the Constitution, the petitioner's "standard [of proof] is a demanding one." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. 2d 687 (1996). Petitioner has not met that standard. 3. Analysis. Petitioner first claims that the prosecution vindictively......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT