Ex Parte: James Edward Hilliard v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence did not support finding that alleged participant had requisite “intent to defraud”
• reiterating that claims of constitutional error are reviewed de novo
• remanding for resentencing because sentencing adjustments for aggravated role and for abuse of trust were unjustified, but nonetheless affirming the district court’s finding that the defendant obstructed justice
• using interstate wire transmissions during a purported scheme or artifice to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and theft of fed- eral funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666
• using interstate wire transmissions during a purported scheme or artifice to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and theft of fed- eral funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666
• reversing enhancement where the government agency did not place “a special trust, akin to that of a fiduciary,” in the defendant above her obligation to adhere to the terms and conditions for the grant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).