LUPPINO, JAMES v. MOSEY, ACEA A.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that receipt of stolen property, which does not require proof of ownership, is a generic theft offense
• concluding that conviction for receipt of stolen property under California Penal Code § 496d(a) is categorically an aggravated felony
• noting that petitioner’s “immigration violations, combined with his extensive criminal history” were a “virtually insurmountable 4 24-1531 block” for relief
• determining that a California conviction for receipt of stolen property “fits within the generic definition of theft”
• noting that gatekeeping function is 6 less needed where a court is only keeping the gate for itself
• affirming the admission of Beers as an expert where the district court “ma[de] an explicit finding regarding the scientific validity of Beers’s testimony”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).