Case Citator › United States v. Padilla

United States v. Padilla

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Reversed
Court
First Circuit
Citation
393 F.3d 256
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
2005
Reversed
A higher court reversed this decision. Do not rely on it for the points reversed; the history below says what the higher court did. The 2004 panel decision in United States v. Padilla was withdrawn and reversed in part on rehearing. All 33 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The en banc First Circuit withdrew the panel's automatic vacatur of the drug testing condition for an unpreserved delegation error, applied ordinary plain error review, and allowed the sentence to stand. It did not disturb the panel's affirmance of the conviction or its conclusion that the delegation violated the statute. The later decision is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

33 later cases cite United States v. Padilla; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Padilla?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Reversed

  • The en banc First Circuit withdrew the panel's automatic reversal of an unpreserved drug testing delegation error and allowed the sentence to stand.

    United States v. Padilla · First Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Subsequently, a majority of the judges of this court in active service voted, sua sponte, to withdraw the panel opinion in relevant part and rehear en banc “the questions of whether, to what extent,, and in what manner plain-error review applies to improper delegations of sentencing authority of the type” that had occurred in Padilla I. United States v. Padilla, 403 F.3d 780, 780 (1st Cir.2005) (Padilla II) (order granting, rehearing en banc). We have received supplemental briefs and heard oral argument. We now overrule that portion of the panel opinion in Meléndez-Santana that requires automatic reversal for delegation errors, hold that conventional plain error principles must be applied in such cases, proceed to analyze the delegation error here under those principles, and conclude that despite the delegation error, Padilla’s sentence may stand.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Padilla and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace