Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch

Oral arguments

• Argued

  40 min recording
  Listen
• Argued

  76 min recording
  Listen
• Argued

  43 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant’s telephone conversation with minor confederate informing him of robbery details insufficient for application of enhancement
• agreeing that “some affirmative act is necessary beyond mere partnership in order to implicate §3B1.4”
• noting that “the Feeney Amendment’s change in the composition of the Sentencing Commission may provide an arguable basis for distinguishing Mistretta,” but rejecting the argument on plain-error review
• co- conspirator’s reasonably foreseeable use of a minor cannot apply to other conspiracy members for the purpose of applying § 3B1.4
• co- conspirator’s reasonably foreseeable use of a minor cannot apply to other conspiracy members for the purpose of applying § 3B1.4
• “In our view, § 3B1.4 ‘specifie[s]’ [referring to § 1B1.3(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).