US v. O'BRIEN
| Citation | 130 S.Ct. 2169,176 L. Ed. 2d 979 |
| Decision Date | 23 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-1569.,08-1569. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Martin O'BRIEN and Arthur Burgess. |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Benjamin Horwich, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, CA, for respondents.
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General Counsel of Record, Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben Deputy Solicitor General, Benjamin J. Horwich, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Sangita K. Rao, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Jeffrey L. Fisher, Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford, CA, Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Howe & Russell, P.C., Bethesda, MD, Timothy P. O'Connell, Counsel of Record, Charlestown, MA, Patricia A. Millett, Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC, for respondent O'Brien.
Jeffrey T. Green, Quin M. Sorenson, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, Tacy F. Flint, Jeremy G. Mallory, Sean A. Siekkinen, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for respondent Arthur Burgess.
The Court must interpret, once again,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...Supreme Court has not overruled Almendarez-Torres, and its holding remains binding precedent in this Circuit. See United States v. O'Brien, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 2174, 2180 (2010) (holding the machine gun provision is an element of the offense,not a sentencing factor, but recognizing the Almendar......
- United States v. O'Brien
-
U.S.A v. Williams
...144-45, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as described in United States v. O'Brien, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 2169, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2010)). We are not without guidance in ascertaining the ordinary meaning of the phrase “act of violence.” The Supr......
-
U.S. v. Walker
...Congress amended § 924 in 1998 to add the word “possess” to the statute, thus overturning Bailey. See United States v. O'Brien, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 2179, 176 L.Ed.2d 979 (2010). 10. The defendants claim that the “entire case” for the prosecution consisted of the testimony of conf......
-
Criminal Law--Stateless Vessel Analysis Incorporated into Federal Maritime Drug Trafficking Statute Ignored Bilateral Treaty--United States v. Matos-Luchi.
...Cir. 2002) (asserting vessel jurisdiction not element of crime but instead "substantive reach of statute"); United States v. O'Brien, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 2171 (2010) (holding substantive change should not be inferred from silence of Congress in revising or amending statute but should arise from......