Matter of Alicia SS. v. Andrew RR.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that this court has jurisdiction under sec. 3742(a)(2) where defendant argues that the district court’s denial of a downward adjustment resulted from an incorrect application of the Guidelines
• rejecting outrageousness claim when government used informant who previously had had a sexual relationship with defendant
• rejecting outrageousness claim when government used informant who previously had had a sexual relationship with defendant
• rejecting outrageousness claim when government used informant who previously had had a sexual relationship with defendant
• where the government informant was employed by government agency on a contingent fee arrangement, continued to use cocaine while in government’s employ, and had been sexually intimate with defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).