United States v. Anthony King

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a violation of § 220.16(1) was a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)
• construing the word involving “as extending the focus of § 924(e) beyond the precise offenses of distributing, manufacturing, or possessing” to include the offense of attempted possession with intent to sell
• “[I]nvolving has expansive connotations . . . encompassing . . . offenses that are related to or connected with [distributing, manufacturing, or possessing.]”
• ʺThe word ʹinvolvingʹ has expansive connotations.ʺ
• “The word ‘involving’ has expansive connotations[.]”
• “The word ‘involving’ has expansive connotations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).