Case Citator › United States v. Dabeit

United States v. Dabeit

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

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
231 F.3d 979
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
2,322 of 2,322
Citing cases (total)
2,551
Treatment dates
2004
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. United States v. Dabeit was overruled in part by the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. United States v. Reyna replaced Dabeit's automatic-reversal rule for an unobjected-to denial of allocution with plain-error review.
More on how this was screened

Dabeit's separate holding that lower courts must follow Almendarez-Torres v. United States unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it was repeatedly followed and remains unaffected.

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.

2,551 later cases cite United States v. Dabeit; 2,322 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. Dabeit?

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

Overruled in part

  • The en banc court overruled Dabeit's automatic-reversal rule for denial of allocution, holding that an unobjected-to Rule 32 violation is reviewed for plain error under Rule 52(b).

    United States v. Reyna · Fifth Circuit en banc · filed

    Under this court’s precedents, the district court’s denial of the right of allocution is not subject to plain or harmless error review under Rule 52. Rather we have consistently held that this error requires automatic reversal. United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 981 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Myers, 150 F.3d 459 (5th Cir.1998). We took this case en banc to reconsider these precedents. ... In summary, we conclude that the district court erred in failing to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(C)’s requirement that the court address the defendant and give him an opportunity to make a statement in mitigation of sentence. We hold, however, that this unobjected to error should be analyzed under Fed.R.Crim. P.52(b) so that the district court’s error is subject to plain error review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Dabeit 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