OBDULIO IRIZARRY, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, while it “appears at frst glance that there is confict . . . , a closer look at the decisions suggests that there may be less difference than meets the eye”
• explaining that, while it “appears at first glance that there is con- flict, . . . a closer look at the decisions suggests that there may be less difference than meets the eye”
• affirming forfeiture order, despite district court’s failure to enter a preliminary order prior to the sentencing hearing and to make the order final at sentencing, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 (2004
• “The illegal seizure of property does not immunize that property from forfeiture as long as the government can sustain the forfeiture claim with independent evidence.”
• “[W]e conclude that missing the deadline set in Rule 32.2 does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction[.]”
• “[W]e conclude that missing the deadline set in Rule 32.2 does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).