In re L.M.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to rely on statements that were dicta as a basis for determining the district court’s reasoning
• “[C]ases postdating the sentencing ‘cast[] very little light, if any, on the key question of historical fact.’”
• “Faced with this uncertain precedential landscape, the district court likely would have quickly determined that Pickett’s battery convictions qualified under the residual clause, but we do not know what else it might have thought.”
• “The district court obviously is in a better position than we are to evaluate what likely happened [at the time of sentencing] in 2007, especially since we are remanding this case to the very judge who initially sentenced Pickett.”
• “[A] conviction’s eligibility under one or the other clause can- not be determinative . . . because the conviction’s arguable qualifi- cation under the elements clause would not necessarily mean the judge relied on that clause.” (citation omitted)
• reviewing a district court’s factual findings for clear error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).