# United States v. Lewis

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · March 15, 2007 · 492 F.3d 1219

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/77622

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** March 15, 2007
- **Citations:** 492 F.3d 1219
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 87 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/77622

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, prior to Olano, the court often used the term “waiver” without “addressing the difference between waiver and forfeiture” and, despite concluding that a defendant’s claims were waived, sometimes reviewed the merits of the claim on appeal
- holding “that a defendant who simply failed to raise a double jeopardy claim before the district court, and took no affirmative steps to voluntarily relinquish the claim, forfeited that claim” and reviewed for plain error
- recognizing that “the simple failure to assert a right, without any affirmative steps to voluntarily waive the claim, is a forfeiture to be reviewed under the plain error standard embodied in [Fed.R.Crim.P.] Rule 52(b)”
- explaining that failure to assert a right constitutes forfei- ture and not waiver
- finding that defendant did not waive, but rather forfeited, double jeopardy claim when raising it for the first time on appeal

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FILED
No. 06-11876 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
(D.C. Docket No. 05-20392-CR) MARCH 15, 2007
THOMAS K. KAHN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLERK

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DOMINIQUE LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

---------------------------
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida
--------------------------

(Opinion November 1, 2006)

(March 15, 2007)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES,
BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:
A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of

rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel's

opinion is hereby VACATED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/77622. Public record. Not legal advice.