www.glynncartledge.com - Updated June 21, 2005
Contact Us: glynncartledge@gbis.com

EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, and ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEALS
and
All Federal Trial and Appellate Matters.

We have represented clients
from over 16 States
and 12 Foreign Countries.
Photo of Glynn Cartledge
Click Photo To View Our Reno Office Locations, and Map Link.

THE LAW OFFICES OF
GLYNN B. CARTLEDGE
Glynn B. Cartledge, Esq.
Attorney at Law
507 W. 6th Street
Reno, Nevada 89503
Telephone (775) 324-5080
Facsimile (775) 324-2554
Cell Phone (775) 843-8249
E-mail: glynncartledge@gbis.com

We are available to assist Individuals or their Attorneys with their 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuit Appeals.


SOME OF THE MANY APPEALS FILED BY THIS OFFICE:

SUCCESSFUL DEFENSES IN 2002 ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS:

  • Threats Against the President
      The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial in the case of the United States v. Hanna. The Government charged and a jury convicted Hanna on seven counts of making threats against the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 871(a). Ms. Cartledge argued that the district abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of Secret Service Agents to prove that a "reasonable person" would have seen a threat to the President in these leaflets. The Ninth Circuit agreed. In its decision the Circuit said, "In this case, using hightly trained agents to determine what a reasonable person would foresee was like using a bloodhound to determine whether the average person would pick up a scent."
      U.S. v. Hanna, No. 00-10238, (9th Cir. June 20, 2002).


  • Supression of Evidence
      In two other separate cases, Ms. Cartledge was successful in reversing the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Both these cases involved illegal firearms.

      The first case occured in 1999 and was finally determined on Feburary 29, 2002 by the Ninth Circuit in which they reversed and remanded the case and suppressed a machine gun, a short-barrelled rifle, two counts of possession of an unregistered silencer, and two counts of possession of a silencer without a serial number. The Ninth Circuit determined that the defendant's wife did not have apparent authority to consent to a search of the defendant's home. U.S. v. Heltsley, (9th Cir. February 28, 2002, Unpublished Opinion; No 01-10100)

      A year later, after his conviction on the first case and while he was awaiting sentencing, the police saw this same defendant in a vehicle travelling slowly. The officer stopped him, searched his vehicle with his consent, and found an automatic weapon, and a bomb. The district court charged him with two counts of illegal possession. He filed a motion to suppress based on the illegality of the stop. He conditionally pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the legality of the stop. The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to suppress. Ms. Cartledge secured the reversal. On July 19, 2002, upon Ms. Cartledge's motion, the district court signed an order granting dismissal of this second case.
      U.S. v. Heltsley, (9th Cir. February 28, 2002, Unpublished Opinion; Nos. 01-10127).


  • Innocence
      We are presently conducting two DNA tests on behalf of clients whom we feel are innocent of the crimes of which they have been accused.


  • Drugs and Miscellaneous
      We are recently had two felony drug distributions reduced to dismissals and two felony drug distributions reduced to probation.


  • Firearm Charge Dismissed
      We filed a motion to dismiss in the federal court in another case involving firearms (with a possible ten year sentence). The court granted the motion and dismissed the Government's case.


    You May Need Us For:

    Individuals: We can immediately proceed with filing an appeal on your behalf in the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits. The time limit for filing a Notice of Appeal is strictly limited.

    Attorneys: We can perform local services, including Oral Argument, for appeals you have initiated on behalf of your clients. We will also help you in the following areas: Representation in Federal Court, Grand Jury Proceedings, Appeals of Federal Court Decisions (both Civil and Criminal), Habeas Corpus Proceedings, and Forfeiture Matters.
    Who We Are:
    The team: Glynn B. Cartledge, Esq., Attorney; Mary Beth Gardner, Esq., Attorney; and Jon Cornell, Executive Legal Assistant.

    What We Do:
    The Practice: In all Federal and State Courts -- Civil, Criminal, Forfeiture, and Appellate Matters, including all stages of White-Collar Criminal Defense.

    Qualifications:

    • Ms. Cartledge was a law clerk for the former Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Honorable Procter R. Hug, Jr., and law clerk for the Honorable Howard D. McKibben, the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Ms. Cartledge is a graduate of Washington & Lee University School of Law in 1987.

    • Ms. Cartledge is currently an evaluator for the National Appellate Advocacy Competition sponsored by the American Bar Association wherein she is evaluating submitted law students' briefs for competition. That competition is focused on 18 USC § 875 and particularly the true threats doctrine.

    • (Mark Feldman of the Asset Forfeiture Network says on his web page,"Glynn Cartledge, Esq., specializes in federal criminal cases. She has achieved substantial victories in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court in Reno.")
    Recent Court Rulings of Interest:

    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
        Dismissal of defendant's appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, is reversed where the district court erred by dismissing defendant's case without granting an evidentiary hearing since the record is not sufficiently developed enough to decide whether defendant's trial counsel was ineffective. Ballinger v. U.S., (7th Cir. August 11, 2004)

    • Enhancements Based on Co-Conspiritors
        Defendant-Johnson's sentence for extortion is vacated as the district court erred in enhancing his sentence on the basis of a co-conspirator's act of murder. Defendant-Hunter's sentence is also vacated for a more particularized determination of the amount of loss caused by defendant-Hunter. U.S. v. Johnson, (2nd Cir. August 9, 2004)

    • Blakely challenges
        Defendant filed a second challenge to his conviction under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004); however, because the Blakely rule does not apply to cases on collateral review, the Court dismissed without prejudice and defendant may renew his application if the Supreme Court later announces that Blakely applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Simpson v. U.S., (7th Cir. July 16, 2004)

    • Federal firearm sentencing
        Concerning defendant's possession of a firearm conviction, the district court erred in failing to apply U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), which required a federal sentence to run concurrently with undischarged state sentence if the state sentence resulted from "offense(s) that have been fully taken into account in the determination of the offense level" for the federal offense. U.S. v. Lynch, (5th Cir. July 14, 2004)

    • Holdout Jurors
        Habeas writ was properly granted to prisoner based on the state trial corut's dismissal of the lone holdout juror; a trial court may not remove a juror to accommodate the prosecution's desire to exercise a peremptory challenge after a jury has been impaneled. Sanders v. Lamarque, (9th Cir. February 3, 2004)

      Book with turning pages USEFUL LINKS:

      Link to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Circuit Rules: Ninth Circuit Rules

      Link Eighth Circuit Opinions: Eighth Circuit Opinions

      Link Ninth Circuit Opinions: Ninth Circuit Opinions

      Link Tenth Circuit Opinions: Tenth Circuit Opinions from FindLaw.Com

      Link Eleventh Circuit Opinions: Eleventh Circuit Opinions

      Link to Federal Court Rules for District of Nevada: Local Federal Court Rules

      Link to Federal Rules of Evidence: Fed. Rules of Evidence
      United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines: Guidelines Manuals
      Link to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Fed. Rules of Civil Proc.
      Link to Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: Cornell Law School

      Link to The Champion Magazine current articles: Champion Articles

      Link to United States Department of Justice U.S. Dept. of Justice
      Link to U.S. Code via House of Representatives: United States Code (U.S.C.)
      Link to Code of Federal Regulations: U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

      Link to Law Crawler Search Engine: Law Crawler Search
      Link to FindLaw Search Engine: Find Law Search

      Useful Nevada Links:
      Nevada Revised Statutes
      Nevada Supreme Court Advanced Opinions
      The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Neither the State Bar of Nevada nor any agency of the State Bar has certified any lawyer identified here as a specialist or as an expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability.
      E-mail suggestions, questions, or comments about this page to WebMaster c/o: glynncartledge@gbis.com
      Little dog running back and forth