Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00006107 - EFTA00006108

10 mentions1 same-page

Page EFTA00006107Same page

am °Boston. °Buffalo °Charlotte °Chicago °Cincinnati °Cleveland oColumbia °Dallas °Denver =Detroit =El Paso °FEHR) Honolulu o Houston o Indianapolis Jackson o Jacksonville o Kansas City cm Knoxville o Las Vegas o Little Rock o Los Angeles o Louisville o Memphis ci Miami o Milwaukee o M

Page: EFTA00006107 →

CI Moscow CI Nairobi CI New Delhi. Ottawa o Panama City In Paris Phnom Penh O Pretoria ° Rabat o Riyadh cm Rome o San Salvador o Sanaa o Santiago Santo Domingo in Sarajevo Seoul o Singapore Sofia °Tallinn =Tbilisi Tel Aviv =Tokyo CI Vienna Warsaw CLASSIFICATION LEVEL (CHECK ONE) U

Page: EFTA00006107 →

EFTA00191587_sub_005 - EFTA00191587_500

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

le doubt, nor must it be alleged in the indictment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 6. *537 Gayle Helart (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Ap- pellee. William H. Dazey, Jr. (argued), Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellan

as "devoid of any badgering or harass- ment." Id. Looking to the totality of the circum- stances considered by the district court, we con- cluded, in Santiago, that the district court's volun- tariness finding was not clearly erroneous. Id. Sim- ilarly, we must conclude that Mr. Johnson's concern that he m

. However, Mr. Johnson himself stated that at no time did he feel threatened or coerced. With res t to the second submission, in United States I Santiago. 428 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir.2005), we determined that a defendant had con- sented freely and voluntarily to a search despite his claim that officer

EFTA00314991

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

earch doctrine to overturn lower court's decision that statute barring the importation of obscene material was unconstitutional). See also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32. 47-48. 121 S.Ct. 447. 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (explaining that decision barring domestic drug interdiction checkpoints "doe

Cir.2010); United Stales v. Yang, 286 F.3d 940.945-46 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Hyde, 37 F.3d 116. 120 n. 2 (3d Cit 1994); United States v. Santiago, 837 F.2d 1545. 1548 (11th Cir.1988); United States V. Gaviria, 805 F.2d 1108, 1112 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Niver, 689 F.2d 520, 526 (5th