Commonwealth v. Maldonodo

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on Barragan-Lopez to hold that an Arizona conviction for solicitation to possess for sale at least four pounds of marijuana was a CIMT for purposes of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)
• relying on Barragan-Lopez to hold that an Arizona conviction for solicitation to possess for sale at least four pounds of marijuana was a CIMT for purposes of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)
• “[I]t is not unusual to see redundancy occur in clarifying enactments, which do run the risk of introducing other problems while focusing on the task of making sure that a particular problem does not arise.” (citing Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992))
• “[I]t is not unusual to see redundancy occur in clarifying enactments, which do run the risk of introducing other problems while focusing on the task of making sure that a particular problem does not arise.” (citing Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).