LSF9 Master Participation v. Rosetsky, N.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that improperly admitted lay opinion testimony did not affect substantial rights due to the other “considerable evidence” of guilt
• noting that lay opinions should “offer[] insight the jury could not itself have gleaned from the evidence” rather than “provide the conclusion the government wanted the jury to reach”
• “If a district court makes an error in its drug quantity determination that does not affect the base offense level . . . , the error is harmless.”
• “If a district court makes an error in its drug quantity determination that does not affect the base offense level . . . , the error is harmless.”
• “It is clear that the Court was aware of [defendant’s] concerns, and it took some action to remedy the situation when it ordered [the attorney] to file a response to [defendant’s] [first] letter.”
• “It is clear that the Court was aware of [defendant’s] concerns, and it took some action to remedy the situation when it ordered [the attorney] to file a response to [defendant’s] [first] letter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).