ANTHONY RICHARDSON and JAMES WALKER v. UNITED STATES

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the fact-based merger inquiry, in which we looked to whether one crime was “incidental” to another to determine if the offenses merged, had been overruled by Byrd
• kidnapping statute “contains no exception for cases in which the conduct underlying the kidnapping is momentary”
• affirming a conviction because the “evidence was sufficient under a straightforward application of Pinkerton”
• relying on threats by co-conspirator to “cut” victim spoken in presence of defendant
• noting Byrd overruled Robinson’s approach to determining “whether offenses should merge”
• “[A]ll that is required is a ‘seizing, confining’ or the like and a ‘holding or detaining’ for ransom or reward ‘or otherwise.’” 4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).