United States v. Andino-Ortega

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because two federal “crime of violence provisions,” 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and § 2L1.2 of the Guidelines, defined “crime of violence” differently, the court’s precedent dealing with § 16(b
• concluding that the offense injury to a child “can be committed by intentional act without the use of physical force by putting poison or another harmful substance in a child’s food or drink”
• stating that “because the district court’s error clearly affected Andino-Ortega’s sentence, we also find that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”
• finding that Texas child endangerment statute could be violated “without the use of physical force by putting poison or another harmful substance in a child’s food or drink.”
• stating that Texas’s offense of injury to a child could be committed “without the use of physical force by putting poison or another harmful substance in a child’s food or drink”
• “Counsel’s.failure to object below because he did not recognize the argument now being made on appeal is not a waiver.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).