United States v. Anthony Provenzano, in No. 79-1912, and Thomas Andretta, in No. 79-1913

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing the Bail Reform Act’s “directive that courts must consider a convicted appellant’s potential danger” in determining eligibility for bail
• holding “that a defendant’s propensity to commit crime generally, even if the resulting harm would be not solely physical, may constitute a sufficient risk of danger to come within the contemplation of the [Bail Reform] Act.”
• discussing the Bail Reform Act’s “directive that courts must consider a convicted appellant’s potential danger” in determining eligibility for bail
• discussing the Bail Reform Act’s “directive that courts must consider a convicted appellant’s potential danger” in determining eligibility for bail
• affirming denial of bail on the basis of the trial judge's finding that the defendant would continue his racketeering activities if released on bail pending appeal
• acknowledging the possibility of nonphysical harm but reviewing the two defendants’ criminal records, histories of violence and the great possibility of extensive and continual undue influence, and other considerations, before denying them bail

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).