United States v. Sean M. Fennell
Cases that cite this one
43 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Robert Rhodes (D.C. Cir. 1997)
- United States v. Gregory Sitzmann (D.C. Cir. 2018)
- Williams v. United States (D.C. 2013)
- United States v. Williams, John (D.C. Cir. 2000)
- United States v. Lorenzo J. Baylor (D.C. Cir. 1997)
- United States v. Opio Moore (D.C. Cir. 1997)
- United States v. Kevin A. Myles (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Fajardo Campos (District Court, District of Columbia 2026)
- People v. Notyce (Colo. App. 2014)
- Nash v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010)
- Bruce v. Ebert (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2010)
- United States v. Mouling, Willie (D.C. Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Mouling (D.C. Cir. 2009)
- Milton v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
- United States v. Tolson (District Court, District of Columbia 2005)
- United States v. Taylor, Robert N. (D.C. Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Taylor, Robert N. (D.C. Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Norris W. Jackson (7th Cir. 1997)
- United States v. Victor L. Milledge (6th Cir. 1997)
- Nohara v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1997)
- United States v. Lang, S. (10th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Mark D. Clements (6th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Darryl Wayne Askew (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Barbara Copeland (6th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Shaun Thomas (8th Cir. 1996)
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
ORDER
In an opinion filed May 5, 1995, we affirmed Fennell’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). After he petitioned for rehearing, we deferred our decision pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Bailey v. United States, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). In light of Bailey, we granted the petition and requested further briefing.
The Government agrees that Bailey requires reversal of Fennell’s § 924(c) conviction, but requests that we remand for resen-tencing on his drug conviction, arguing that without the § 924(c) conviction, he should receive a 2-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Fennell argues that the Government has waived its right to re-sentencing by not filing a “conditional cross-appeal” — that is, a timely appeal asserting that if the court were to reverse the § 924(c) conviction, the court should remand for re-sentencing on the drug count. We disagree. Requiring the Government to file a preemptive cross-appeal in this sort of case “would burden appellees (and courts) with no appreciable benefit to appellate practice.” United States v. Bohn, 959 F.2d 389, 394 (2d Cir. 1992). Accordingly, it is hereby
*511 ORDERED that appellant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) be reversed; and it is further
ORDERED that this case be remanded to the district court for resentencing.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.