U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1987

United States v. Don Stovall and Robert Harlon "Frosty" Winter

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 24, 1987 · Williams, Mentz

833 F.2d 526; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 16167 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John H. Hagler, Dallas, Tex., for Stovall., Robert H. Winter, pro se., Henry D. Gabriel, Loyola Law School, New Orleans, La. (court-appointed), for Winter., Joseph C. Wyderko, Washington, D.C., Marvin Collins, U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for the U.S.

Cases that cite this one

23 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Mark Garza, Jr. (5th Cir. 2018)
U.S. v. Royal (5th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Jon Harold Royal (5th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Ignacio Andrade-Lopez (5th Cir. 2019)
United States v. Javier Cantu (5th Cir. 2018)
United States v. Randle Jackson, III (5th Cir. 2017)
Jennings, Gary Don (Tex. 2015)
United States v. Frenchitt Collins (5th Cir. 2014)
United States v. McCuiston (5th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Lerma (5th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Corona (5th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Shunk (5th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Joseph Corona, III Lindsey McDonald (5th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Philip K. Shunk and Linda M. Shunk (5th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Dennard (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1993)
United States v. Hilliard (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1993)
United States v. Vijay Parekh (5th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Louis A. Arky (5th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Orlando Richard Velasquez (5th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Daniel K. Conners (8th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Gerald Vontsteen (5th Cir. 1989)
United States v. Miguel Hurtado and Henry Antonio Aguas (5th Cir. 1988)
United States v. Linda Sue Evans (5th Cir. 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that references to the special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3013 appearing in the court’s opinion in this case are DELETED as irrelevant to the decision.

At the conclusion in Part III A of our opinion in this case, we indicated that Ray v. United States, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2093, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987), did not apply, and the concurrent sentence doctrine made it unnecessary to review the convictions on several of the counts. Our conclusion was that the $50 special assessment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013, had not been ordered although mandated by that section. Government counsel has pointed out to us that § 3013 was enacted after the offenses charged in this case occurred. Therefore, *527 the special assessments called for in that section could not have been imposed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.