U.S. v. Hardwell, s. 94-3376
| Decision Date | 10 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 94-3376,94-3390,94-3378,s. 94-3376 |
| Citation | 88 F.3d 897 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Lee HARDWELL, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis L. HARDWELL; Marcel A. Hardwell, Frederick D. Bowens; Adam Stallings, aka Gene Walker, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before EBEL, LOGAN and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Dennis Hardwell has filed a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc, raising the following issues: (1) Prior crimes evidence was improperly admitted against him because the United States failed to show the specific purpose for admitting the evidence, as required by Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); (2) his money laundering conviction should be reversed for the same reasons that we reversed the money laundering conviction of Marcel Hardwell; and (3) there were nine errors identified by the panel and their cumulative effect cannot be excused as harmless error. We conclude only his argument regarding his money laundering conviction has merit. Hardwell's petition for rehearing is denied in part and granted in part; his request for rehearing en banc is denied.
Hardwell did not argue in either his opening appellate brief or in his reply brief that financial information obtained to qualify for appointment of counsel was erroneously offered and admitted against him to establish the money laundering charge. However, under the "related cases" section of his opening brief, Hardwell states: "Appellant request[s] adoption of Co-Appellants['] claims and arguments as to the extent they are applicable to his cause pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 28(J)(ii)." In his petition for rehearing, Hardwell points our attention to this statement. While this statement clearly does not pertain to other pending appeals, the statement is nonetheless made and made within a pro se brief, which we will read liberally. See United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 427 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2497, 135 L.Ed.2d 189 (1996).
The United States was directed to respond to the petition for rehearing and to specifically address whether Dennis Hardwell's money laundering conviction should be reversed for the same reasons that supported reversal of Marcel Hardwell's money laundering conviction. In its response, the United States states that, just as in the case of Marcel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stoedter v. Gates
...that are waived rather than merely forfeited through failure to object are not subject to plain error review."), on reh'g in part, 88 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 1996). 73. Defs.' Supplemental Br., supra note 7, at 13. Defendants also cite to Campos-Orrega v. Rivera, 175 F.3d 89, 98 (1st Cir. 1999)......
-
People v. Greer, 08CA0329.
...error is akin to waived error. See, e.g., United States v. Hardwell, 80 F.3d 1471, 1487 (10th Cir.1996), reh'g granted and rev'd, 88 F.3d 897 (10th Cir.1996); People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307, 1308–09 (Colo.1989). Invited error obviously should not be reviewable for plain error. 8. Crim. P. ......
-
United States v. Deleon
...of economy andexpedition in judicial administration." A. Gallegos' Motion to Sever at 11-12. A. Gallegos then points toUnited States v. Hardwell, [where] the Tenth Circuit held that joinder under Rule 8(b) was not proper when six co-defendants were all charged with conspiracy, money launder......
-
United States v. Hargrove
...Mr. Hargrove cites to both Meridyth and United States v. Hardwell , 80 F.3d 1471 (10th Cir.), modified in part on reh’g , 88 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 1996). However, neither of those cases supports his position.More specifically, Mr. Hargrove argues that the district court’s instructions in this......
-
Raising New Issues on Appeal
...rather than merely forfeited through failure to object are not subject to plain error review."), reh'g granted in part on other grounds, 88 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 1996). [9] Sprint Nextel Corp. v. The Middle Man, Inc., 822 F.3d 524, 531 (10th Cir. 2016). See generally Freytag, 501 U.S. at 894 ......