Here, over the dissent of four judges, the majority of the en banc court held:

"In this case, we apply the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Booker, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621, 543 U.S., 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), to a sentencing error that defendant Louis F. ...

In this case, the Third Circuit spelled out its views regarding remands for resentencing in light of Booker. In rejecting the Government’s motion for an en banc rehearing of an earlier decision that ordered a resentencing for three defendants, the Court essentially held that all cases anywhere in the appellate ...

Defendant, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), moved for a stay while it considered whether or not to appeal from the court's order. The court order at issue directed the CIA to search and review its operational files because the CIA did not satisfy the procedural prerequisites provided in the CIA ...

In a criminal prosecution for racketeering, the government filed a motion to empanel an anonymous and partially sequestered jury for the trial of the case. One of the defendants filed a motion for a severance.

Defendants, who were alleged to be made members or associates of an organized crime family, ...

In this case, three men were convicted of wire fraud for their role in a large-scale liquor smuggling scheme to evade Canada’s high liquor taxes by shipping some 40,000 cases of liquor purchased from discount liquor stores in Maryland across the border from New York. The scheme involved telephoning orders ...

Defendant filed (1) a motion to suppress, on the grounds of a lack of a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention, (2) a motion to dismiss, (3) a motion to suppress statements made by defendant, and (4) a motion in limine, seeking the exclusion of any testimony relating to ...

Here the Court held that a state post-conviction motion is not "properly filed," within the meaning of the tolling provision of the AEDPA’s statute of limitations, when that motion was denied by the state courts for being untimely under state law. The Court distinguished Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 ...

In this case the Court addressed three specific Booker questions, namely: (1) whether to remand for resentencing, rather than for consideration of whether to resentence, where an objection to the compulsory use of the Sentencing Guidelines has been preserved for review; (2) whether, in some circumstances, to review the correctness ...