United States v. Ahmad Nadi and My Brands, Inc.

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 statute is “sufficiently clear to prevent its arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement”
• concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 1031, which prohibits certain kinds of fraud by government 2 contractors, “sets forth clear requirements to guide prosecutors” by specifying the type of 3 contract at issue and the contract value required
• rejecting vagueness challenge where “common sense interpretation of [statutory language at issue] is confirmed by the statute’s legislative history”
• \[V]agueness challenges that do not involve the First Amendment must be examined in light of the specific facts of the case at hand and not with regard to the statute's facial validity\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).