Parise v. Seidman

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a district court procedurally errs when, inter alia, it miscalculates an advisory Guidelines range
• observing that the standard for a criminal conviction “may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence alone” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• observing that the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard for a criminal conviction may be “satisfied by circumstantial evidence alone” (quotation marks omitted)
• “Evidence that demonstrates only guilt by association is irrelevant to the question of a defendant’s actual guilt.”
• “[E]vidence of other acts ‘may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.’”
• \Whether an employer's threatened consequences are 'legitimate' and therefore do not qualify as 'serious harm' will depend on the 'surrounding circumstances' in each case.\ (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1589(c)(2))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).