U.S. v. Mendoza
| Decision Date | 06 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1464,77-1464 |
| Citation | 581 F.2d 88 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago Mario MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, MORGAN,
The Judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with instructions that the district court consider appellant's Rule 35 sentence reduction motion. The opinion of the en banc court will follow.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
Williams v. United States
...634 F.2d 94 (3rd Cir.1980); United States v. Williams, 573 F.2d 527 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam); United States v. Mendoza, 581 F.2d 88, 90 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc) (per curiam); United States v. Stollings, 516 F.2d 1287 (4th Cir.1975); Leyvas v. United States, 371 F.2d 714 (9th Cir.1967). S......
-
United States v. Hamid, 81-1294.
...the Fifth Circuit expressly reaffirmed, in light of Addonizio, its previous interpretation of Rule 35 in United States v. Mendoza, 581 F.2d 88, 90 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc) (per curiam), that if the motion is filed within 120 days, "the district court retains jurisdiction for a reasonable ti......
-
U.S. v. Krohn
...of 120 days in those rare circumstances in which it is unable to decide the motion within the 120-day period. United States v. Mendoza, 581 F.2d 88, 90 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc ), modifying, 565 F.2d 1285 (5th Cir.). In ruling that sentencing courts' jurisdiction can in certain circumstances......
- Academy v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No 75
Request a trial to view additional results