Morales v. Rolon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 3559(c)(3)(A) “is a kind of affirmative defense to the use of certain prior violent felonies as a sentencing factor.”
• holding that “recidivist statues do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if they are ‘on the books at the time the [present] offense was committed.’”
• holding that “recidivist 23 statutes do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if they are ‘on the books at the time the [present] 1 offense was committed’”
• instructing that a statute's title is a tool for interpreting the statute's meaning
• providing that recidivist statutes do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if the recidivist statutes exist at the time of commission of the subsequent offense
• holding that “recidivist statutes” which increase the punishment for a new offense based. on prior bad acts “do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if they are ‘on the books at the time 5 — OPINION AND ORDER the [present] offense was committed’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).