US v. O'BRIEN

Decision Date23 February 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08-1569.,08-1569.
CitationUnited States v. O'Brien, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L. Ed. 2d 979 (2010)
PartiesUNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Martin O'BRIEN and Arthur Burgess.
CourtU.S. 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 respondentArthur Burgess.

Justice KENNEDYdelivered the opinion of the Court.

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 Free

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex
130 cases
  • Gray v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 10 Enero 2013
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 2010
  • U.S.A v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 24 Junio 2010
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 13 Septiembre 2011
    ...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
2 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Law--Stateless Vessel Analysis Incorporated into Federal Maritime Drug Trafficking Statute Ignored Bilateral Treaty--United States v. Matos-Luchi.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Transnational Law Review Vol. 34 No. 2, June 2011
    • 22 Junio 2011
    ...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
    • United States
    • The Rights of the Accused under the Sixth Amendment (ABA) Chapter 5 The Right to Be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusations
    • Invalid date
    ...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......