Michael S. Palmer and Kelly R. Palmer v. Indian River County, Florida

How courts have described this case

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

• scrutinizing the plea colloquy to determine whether the defendant admitted fraudulent intent when the indictment charged the defendant with “intent to injure and defraud”
• “Despite our exercise of de novo review, we will give deference to the agency's interpretation of the aggravated felony definition if Congress's intent is unclear”
• in determining whether an offense involves “fraud or deceit,” we look to the necessary elements of the offense of conviction
• “The fact that the BIA classified embezzlement as . . . a theft offense under § 1101(a)(43)(G) does not mean that it could not also classify it as an offense involving fraud or deceit under § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)”
• “While Valansi pled guilty to the indictment, her specific statements during the colloquy clarified what that plea entailed .... We therefore decline to limit our inquiry to the charge as stated in the indictment.”
• “While Valansi pled guilty to the indictment, her specific statements during the colloquy clarified what that plea entailed . . . . We therefore decline to limit our inquiry to the charge as stated in the indictment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).