US v. O'BRIEN
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Citation | United States v. O'Brien, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L. Ed. 2d 979 (2010) |
| Decision Date | 23 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-1569.,08-1569. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Martin O'BRIEN and Arthur Burgess. |
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,
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
130 cases
-
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......
Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
-
Raise or lose: appellate discretion and principled decision-making.
...and the legal error."); The court stated that the possibility of harm does not satisfy a finding of prejudice. Id.; see, e.g., Marcus, 130 S. Ct. at 2194; Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104, 113 (1st Cir. (86) Olano, 507 U.S. at 736 (cit......
-
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......
-
VI. Challenging the Sufficiency of the Indictment
...If the motion is not made then, the challenge will be deemed waived.84--------Notes:[77] . See generally United States v. O'Brien, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010). As stated in Williams v. State, 2014 WL 3409170 (Miss. App. 2014), "The primary purpose of an indictment is to give a defendant fair not......
