Mola Development Corp. v. United States

holding that the defendant was not entitled to the instruction when there was no “affirmatively contested” evidence that raised disputed fact issues on whether the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional or statutory rights | holding that the defendant was not entitled to the instruction when there was no “affirmatively contested” evidence that raised disputed fact issues on whether the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional or statutory rights | holding that the defendant was not entitled to the instruction when there was no “affirmatively contested” evidence that raised disputed fact issues on whether the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional or statutory rights | holding that the defendant was not entitled to the instruction when there was no “affirmatively contested” evidence that raised disputed fact issues on whether the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional or statutory rights | rejecting various constitutional challenges to Article 37.071 including the claim that it is unconstitutional because the mitigation special issue fails to place a burden of proof on the State | upholding upward variance based on the nature and characteristics of the defendant and his criminal history | rejecting various constitutional challenges to Article 37.071 including the claim that it is unconstitutional because the mitigation special issue fails to place a burden of proof on the State | rejecting various constitutional challenges to Article 37.071 including the claim that it is unconstitutional because the mitigation special issue fails to place a burden of proof on the State | “This Court has no obligation to construct and compose appellant’s issues, facts, and arguments with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” | "This Court has no obligation to construct and compose appellant's issues, facts, and arguments with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." | "When a defendant fails to raise a procedural objection below, appellate review is for plain error only.” | “This affidavit suggests that a supervisory designation was required, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 563.13(7)(I) & (III) (1988