context: . Montoya-Ortiz does not contend that the weapon was unconstitutionally seized for the sole purpose of enhancing his sentence.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 930 F.2d 63, 68
citation_a.parenthetical: under particular facts of case, deterrent effect of exclusionary rule would not outweigh detrimental effect of excluding the evidence at sentencing
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Tejada, 956 F.2d 1256, 1263 (2d Cir.) ("Absent a showing that officers obtained evidence expressly to enhance a sentence, a district judge may not refuse to consider relevant evidence at sentencing, even if that evidence has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 124, 121 L.Ed.2d 80 (1992); United States v. Lynch, 934 F.2d 1226, 1237 (11th Cir.1991) (declining to extend exclusionary rule to sentencing proceedings), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 885, 116 L.Ed.2d 788 (1992); United States v. McCrory, 930 F.2d 63, 68 (D.C.Cir.1991) (under particular facts of case, deterrent effect of exclusionary rule would not outweigh detrimental effect of excluding the evidence at sentencing), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 885, 116 L.Ed.2d 788 (1992).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 952 F.2d 854, 856
citation_b.parenthetical: exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised release revocation hearings absent a showing of harassment
citation_b.sentence: Cf. United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 856 (5th Cir.1992) (exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised release revocation hearings absent a showing of harassment).