United States v. Shawn D. Hosea
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Lillian Weekly (D.C. Cir. 1993)
- Joy Evans v. Sharon Pratt Kelly (D.C. Cir. 1993)
- Chester Douglas Dolan v. William P. Barr, Attorney General (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- Michael Sindram v. Stuart F. Johnson (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- Torrence T. Tillman v. United States Supreme Court (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Mesfin S. Halefom (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Ruth E. Wheeler (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Clyde Rowell (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Stanley W. Beatty (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- Homestake Mining Company v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- Donald Sabin v. New Homes Guide (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Michael Dobson, United States of America v. George Donis (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation/nbw v. Donald Bezahler (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- Grant Anderson v. District of Columbia Public Defender Service (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Dorrell R. Coulthrust (D.C. Cir. 1992)
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
979 F.2d 248
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Shawn D. HOSEA, Appellant.
No. 91-3154.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1992.
Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties and arguments by counsel. After full review of the case, the court is satisfied that appropriate disposition of the appeal does not warrant an opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 14(c).
Hosea argues that the district court improperly instructed the jury as a result of a single use of the word "accompany" in its reinstructions to the jury. But "[i]n deciding whether jury instructions are erroneous, we always consider the whole instruction--not just the supposedly erroneous snippet." United States v. Whoie, 925 F.2d 1481, 1485 (D.C.Cir. 1991). The district court's instructions did not relieve the government of its burden of proving every element of 21 U.S.C. § 861(a). The court repeatedly charged the jury that Hosea was charged with "using" a minor--a term employed in § 861. Hosea's appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress is meritless in light of United States v. Winston, 892 F.2d 112, 117 (D.C.Cir. 1989). We have also reviewed the trial record and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction. It is, accordingly
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.