Concorde Resources, Inc. v. Woosley (In re Woosley)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court was not clearly erroneous in determining that appellant was not a minor participant where his participation \was equal to that of the other [co-defendants]\
• holding that the district court was not clearly erroneous in determining that appellant was not a minor participant where his participation “was equal to that of the other [co-defendants]”
• holding that drug smuggling and transportation of illegal aliens are logically related because “illegal aliens could thwart ... immigration laws if they can support themselves in this country through the money obtained through [drug smuggling]”
• holding that drug smuggling and transportation of illegal aliens are logically related because \illegal aliens could thwart . . . immigration laws if they can support themselves in this country through the money obtained through [drug smuggling]\
• explaining that even if hearsay testimony should have been excluded, \the effect of the statement was clearly harmless because it was merely cumulative testimony\
• affirming trial court’s determination that drug courier in possession of significant amount of heroin was not a minor participant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).