779 F.2d 296 - United States v. Hogan — 779 F.2d 296

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2020

3 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Ronald P. Guyer, Gerald H. Goldstein, John A. Convery, San Antonio, Tex., for Barry Kendall Hogan.

¶2Robert G. Turner, Houston, Tex., for Mark Bradford Hogan.

¶3Edward C. Prado, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Mervyn Hamburg, Atty., Appellate Sec., Crim.Div., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4Before CLARK, Chief Judge, BROWN, and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Based upon the record as supplemented after limited remand, we affirm the findings of the district court that the notes of DEA Agent Braziel were not covered by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(2).

¶7Pursuant to this court’s opinions of June 7 and August 29, 1985, the convictions of Barry Kendall Hogan and Mark Bradford Hogan on Count 2 are affirmed, the convictions of said defendants on Counts 1 and 3 are reversed, and the causes are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our prior opinions.

¶8AFFIRMED IN PART AND IN PART REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶9ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

¶10Before CLARK, Chief Judge, BROWN, and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

¶11PER CURIAM:

¶12IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied. Based on the documentary proof presented, the district court’s decision on the remanded Jencks Act issue is plainly correct. That court made the determination to conduct the remand proceedings in camera. There is no basis shown in the record before this court to fault that decision or to indicate that it affected any substantial rights of defendants.