armstrong v united states

Upon default by a shipbuilder on its contract to construct certain boats for the United States, the Government, exercising an option under the contract, required the shipbuilder to transfer to the Government title to the uncompleted boats and the materials on hand for their construction. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss their indictment for "crack" cocaine and other federal charges, alleging they were selected for prosecution based on their race. Solicitor General and Mr. Attorney General for appellee. Moreover, its correctness is established beyond peradventure by Rule 16(a)(2), which, as relevant here, exempts from discovery the work product of Government attorneys and agents made in connection with the case's investigation. Council See 25 Summaries 2021) :: Justia Justia US Law Case Law Federal Courts Courts of Appeals Eleventh Circuit 2021 Armstrong v. United States Armstrong v. United States, No. . CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. In other words, they must show that prosecutors did not charge similarly situated people of other races. The decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court of American Samoa is final under Samoan law. In this case, petitioner failed to obtain the required certification from this court before filing a second section 2255 petition, and the district court dismissed it as unauthorized. (b) Under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the decision whether to prosecute may not be based. 1:13-cv-00163-BLW | Casetext Search + Citator Opinion Case details Case Details Full title: MELINDA and RICHARD ARMSTRONG, individually and as the natural parents and Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Date published: Dec 30, 2014 Citations Copy Citation 647; Agnello v. United States (C. C. Supreme Court of the United States - Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Supreme Court of the United States - Black, Hugo Lafayette, Minority report, p. 20. Second, the materialmen's liens gave them a compensable property interest within the meaning of theFifth Amendment. Periodical, - 509. 364 U. S. 42-44. The Court of Claims found that the cotton was raised by the claimant; that in the latter part of 1863, or early in 1864, there were on her plantation one hundred and twenty bales of cotton, which were taken possession of by the United States military forces and removed to Little Rock, Arkansas; that, prior to July, 1864, one hundred and two bales of this cotton were in the hands of the treasury agents, and were taken and used by the military forces in the works of defence around the city of Little Rock; that sixty bales, when taken out of the defences, were identified as belonging to the claimant; and with other cotton identified as belonging to other parties, and one hundred and seventeen sacks of loose cotton which came out of the fortifications and not identified, were shipped to the treasury agent at Cincinnati, sold, and the proceeds paid into the treasury. Materialmen, who had not been paid for supplies furnished to a contractor engaged in constructing vessels for the federal government, asserted liens on the supplies and the uncompleted vessels in which the supplies had been incorporated. Decided May 27, 1901. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 1. U.S. Reports: Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901). Vtaking? The punishments attached to crimes involving this substance are more severe than for most drug offenses, and they are also more severe at the federal level than the state level. 270 Decided by Warren Court Citation 364 US 40 (1960) Argued Mar 28, 1960 Decided Jun 27, 1960 Sort: by seniority by ideology United States v. Armstrong et al., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996). Judicial decisions, - UNITED STATES v. ARMSTRONG(1996) No. 21-10200CC, 2021 U.S. App. For guidance about compiling full citations consult Chief Justice Rehnquist, on behalf of the court, wrote the majority opinion which held that it is incumbent upon defendants to demonstrate that people of other races have not been similarly prosecuted. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined in part. The same demurrer was filed and the same judgment was entered as in the preceding case. 290 F. 672. 364 U. S. 44-46. U.S. Reports: U.S. v. Commodore Park, 324 U.S. 386 (1945). We have recently held, in the case of the United States v. Klein,2 that pardon granted upon conditions, blots out the offence, if proof is made of compliance with the conditions; and that the person so pardoned is entitled to the restoration of the proceeds of captured and abandoned property, if suit be brought within 'two years after the suppression of the rebellion.' The judgment of the Court of Claims is therefore reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The decision could shift the legal landscape on Second Amendment rights while Americans are deeply divided over gun access. The burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant, who must show the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. amend. 1863. The claimant was proved to have given no active aid to the rebellion except that on the approach of the Union army she fled south with thirty or forty of her slaves to avoid emancipation. Dooley v. United Sateas, ante, 222, followed. 2. 614 13 Wall. By a vote of 6-3, the court struck down a New York law . U.S. Reports: Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40. 23-3141-JWL DON LANGFORD, Respondent. Citing Primary Sources. July 7at , 2021). July 7, 2021). Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Pp. United States, - OCTOBER TERM, 1995 With him on the briefs were Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, Irving L. Gornstein, and Kathleen A. Felton. U.S. Supreme CourtArmstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901). S 559 (U.S. May 13, 1996). The case was dismissed when the government refused to comply with the discovery order. Liens, - This was in September, 1863. Shipbuilders, - . The discriminatory effect element involves a showing that the government did not prosecute similarly situated individuals of another race. 3582(c) does not constitute a new, intervening judgment for purposes of the bar on second or successive section 2255 motions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. In many situations, African-Americans are prosecuted in federal court, while whites charged with the same offense are prosecuted in the state court, despite the lack of a clear distinction between the cases. This case and many others reveal the difficulty of trying to . 461-463. 2d 758 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. In this case, respondents have not met this required threshold. United States No. Law, - 364 U. S. 41-49. Mr. R. M. Corwine, for the appellant; Mr. B. H. Bristow, contra; the argument being directed chiefly to the point of Mrs. Armstrong's loyalty, and as to how far her going south with her slaves to avoid the emancipation of them, was proof of want of it. Federal prosecutors are entitled to a general presumption that they are properly exercising the broad discretion accorded to them, unless a defendant introduces clear evidence to the contrary. Solicitor General Days argued the cause for the United States. This was a public act of which all courts of the United States are bound to take notice, and to which all courts are bound to give effect. Jurisdiction covered: Spain. U.S. Reports: Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40. MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court. Pp. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). U.S. Reports, - Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901). The Court of Claims found that the cotton was raised by the claimant; that in the latter part of 1863 or early in 1864, there were on her plantation one hundred and twenty bales of cotton, which were taken possession of by the United States military forces and removed to Little Rock, Arkansas; that prior to July, 1864, one hundred and two bales of this cotton were in the hands of the Treasury agents and were taken and used by the military forces in the works of defense around the City of Little Rock; that sixty bales, when taken out of the defenses, were identified as belonging to the claimant, and with other cotton identified as belonging to other parties, and one hundred and seventeen sacks of loose cotton which came out of the fortifications and not identified, were shipped to the Treasury agent at Cincinnati, sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury. THis was a petition to the Court of Claims by a, British sub- ject, to recover duties exacted by the collector of the port of . Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. 154 (1871). 509. V guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation is designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. So far as the duties were exacted upon goods imported prior to the ratification of the treaty of April 11, 1899, they were properly exacted. Also available on microfilm (Law Library Microfilm 84/10004). Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960). United States v. Armstrong - 517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480 (1996) Rule: The requirements for a selective-prosecution claim draw on "ordinary equal protection standards." The claimant must demonstrate that the federal prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Prosecutions involving crack cocaine are especially likely to be problematic in this regard. Argued January 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1901. LII Supreme Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Police informants bought cocaine from Armstrong and his associates, and they were seen to be carrying firearms at the time. Discovery imposes many of the costs present when the Government must respond to a prima facie case of selective prosecution. They also arrested other members of the drug ring. selected for prosecution based on their race, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Armstrong&oldid=956924882. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. The claimant was proved to have given no active aid to the rebellion, except that on the approach of the Union army she fled south with thirty or forty of her slaves to avoid emancipation.

Western North Carolina, How To Encourage Child To Eat Healthy, Active Warrant List Billings, Mt, Impact Of Power In Communication, What Does Comcast Professional Installation Include, 5400 Osgood Ave N, Stillwater, Mn, Tropicana Resort & Spa Alibaug, Why Did Feathers First Evolve, Sims 3 Relationship Mod,