Rabiu v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding no constructive amendment where the indictment contained facts that “necessarily supported” and “gave fair notice” of the contents of the jury instruction
• explaining that such a scenario “falls squarely within the ‘invited error’ doctrine”
• finding the “case falls squarely within the ‘invited error’ doctrine” where, “despite having knowledge of the law, the defendants ‘proposed or accepted’ what they now claim to be ‘a flawed instruction’”
• noting, “The legislative history supports this statutory interpretation,” based on other canons
• “The FTAIA does not limit the power of the federal courts; rather, it provides substantive elements under the Sherman Act in cases involving nonimport trade with foreign nations.”
• “[I]mport trade . . . does not fall within the FTAIA at all.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).