U.S. v. Armstrong, s. 93-50031
Decision Date | 11 July 1996 |
Docket Number | Nos. 93-50031,93-50057,s. 93-50031 |
Citation | 88 F.3d 831 |
Parties | UNITED 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. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth 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 trial9 cases
-
Odeh v. United States
...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)
...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.
...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
...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