E. F. v. DEPT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that government’s interpretation of Application Note 1 to mean that section 2G2.2(b)(2) covers nompeeuniary distributions “strikes us as strained”
• stating that government's interpretation of Application Note 1 to mean that section 2G2.2(b)(2) covers non-pecuniary distributions \strikes us as strained\
• finding unreviewable sentencing judge’s denial of a diminished capacity departure where “he knew he had discretion to depart, but that he believed a departure was unwarranted”
• rejecting convicted pedophile’s Eighth Amendment challenge to his prosecution for receiving, distributing, and possessing child pornography because, inter alia, defendant “did not show that [the] charged conduct was involuntary or uncontrollable”
• “[P]eeuniary gain is a broad concept itself, and it does not exclude the possibility of swaps, barter, in-kind transactions, or other valuable consideration.”
• “[Pecuniary gain is a broad concept itself, and it does not exclude the possibility of swaps, barter, in-Mnd transactions, or other valuable consideration.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).