United States of America, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Charles L. Jackson, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing district court’s grant of Rule 29 motion because sufficient evidence supported jury’s quantity finding
• “[E]ach particular hearsay statement offered under Rule 804(b)(3) must be separately parsed and must, itself, be self-inculpatory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).