UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Stuart HOCKINGS, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the 1996 amendments to § 2256, which added computer data to the definition of visual depiction, did not mean that the pre-1996 statute did not encompass GIF files
• holding that graphic interchange format (GIF) files are visual depictions
• holding that graphic interchange format (GIF) files are visual depictions
• explaining that § 2256(5) “is not drafted as an exhaustive list of all items that constitute a ‘visual depiction’ ”
• stating that when interpreting a statue, the court should study its legislative history if the language of the statute is unclear
• noting that when interpreting a statute, one must construe the provisions of the entire law, including its object and policy, to ascertain the intent of Congress

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).