United States of America, (97-6308/6309) v. David Tex Hill, (97-6051/6286)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant despite hypothetical scenarios where the statute might have been vague as applied to other conduct
• stating that §§ 1956(a)(1)(B) and 1957 “each requires proof of an element the other does not”
• noting that the “knowing” scienter requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 1956 “include[s] instances of ‘wilful blindness’”
• finding that defendant had no standing to argue that gambling statutes were void for vagueness where he had fair notice that his conduct was prohibited by those statutes
• “Hill lacks standing to attack Tennessee’s gambling statute as it might be applied to others.”
• factors considered to determine appropriateness of staying forfeiture order pending appeal include: (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).