In re the Adoption of Robert A. M.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “[t]he district court did not clearly err in concluding this was a case of grooming” in which the defendant “manipulated [the victim’s] weakness”
• explaining that district courts “may rely on facts proved by a preponderance of the evidence” at sentencing, and we review any factfinding for clear error
• Section 2429(b)(3)’s cross-reference to § 2259(b)(3), rather than § 2259(c)(2), is a scrivener’s error.
• “We review special conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion.”
• “A district court is ‘encouraged to provide an explanation of how the conditions satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), but where the basis for the special conditions can be discerned from the record, reversal is not required.’” (cleaned up

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).