Markel American Insurance Company v. Metcor, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the high purity of the drugs alongside defendant’s known trips to Mexico were sufficient to affirm the importation enhancement
• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting recorded jail calls because “the fact that [the defendant] had been in custody before trial was not unfairly prejudicial under [the] circumstances”
• “[O]n this record, the district court could plausibly infer, by a preponderance of evidence, that the methamphetamine was imported.”
• no error if court could “plausibly infer” methamphetamine was imported, and high purity level is a relevant factor
• “Because the qualifying prior convictions in § 2L1.2 and § 4B1.2(b) are defined in substantially the same way, ‘cases discussing these definitions are cited interchangeably.’” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he drug-quantity determination in the PSR is sufficiently reliable even if based on a coconspirator’s ‘imprecise’ testimony, especially absent any competent rebuttal evidence from [the defendant] . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).