# United States of America, at No. 95-2086 v. Anthony Cornish, A/K/A Jerjuan Mitchall, at No. 95-2101

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · January 31, 1997 · 103 F.3d 302

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489871

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellant at No. 95-2086, v. Anthony CORNISH, A/K/A Jerjuan Mitchall, Appellant at No. 95-2101
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** January 31, 1997
- **Citations:** 103 F.3d 302; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1751
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Scirica, Roth, Restani, Trade, Sloviter, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Cowen, Nygaard, Alito, Lewis, McKee
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9489871

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a trial court's instruction that the stipulated facts were to be accepted to which defendant did not object, did not warrant a reversal under the plain error rule
- holding that the district court’s instruction to the jury that it must “accept” the stipulated fact of the defendant’s prior felony conviction did not amount to plain error
- holding that third-degree robbery, a violation of § 3701(a)(1)(v), qualified as a violent felony under ACCA
- finding that the jury should be informed about a stipulated element
- affirming defendant’s felon-in-possession conviction because the district court’s instructing the jury to “accept” a felon status stipulation did not amount to plain or harmful error

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Jan. 31, 1997
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant Anthony Cornish in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court in banc, is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489871. Public record. Not legal advice.