United States v. Alfred Lee Mauldin

How courts have described this case

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

• admitting evidence of prior drug dealing in similar amounts in the same location as the charged crime
• applying federal statutory interpretation ruling retroactively to defendant’s case, which was on direct appeal
• government does not need to notify a defendant of its intent to seek an enhancement under Section 924(e)
• \[Defendant] contends that the government should be bound by its original notice [which incorrectly listed a prior conviction as carrying a maximum term of only six years]. The government correctly points out that the ACCA does not require notice prior to enhancement.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).