Loffredi v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that so long as proof is legally sufficient to allow jury to find that predicate § 924(c)(1)(A) offense was committed, defendant need not be separately charged with and convicted of that offense
• stating without elaboration that bank robbery under § 2113(a) constitutes a \crime of violence\ for the purposes of conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A)
• upholding § 924(c) conviction even though conviction on predicate crime (bank robbery) was vacated, as there was legally sufficient proof that defendant committed the predicate crime
• upholding § 924(c) conviction even though conviction on predicate crime (bank robbery) was vacated, as there was legally sufficient proof that defendant committed the predicate crime
• “[C]ounsel’s failure to [raise] the arguments [that defendant] advances now was not objectively unreasonable, since those arguments are . . . meritless.”
• “Counsel’s failure to [raise] the arguments [petitioner] advances now was not objectively unreasonable, since those arguments are . . . meritless.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).