United States v. Anthony v. Bolden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in light of the 2000 amendment, “brandishing” now includes both “explicit and implicit threats” (emphasis added)
• determining that de novo review was appropriate because the inquiry primarily turned on a question of legal interpretation
• pointing gun at individual while making demand amounts to “more than merely displaying a firearm with an intent to intimidate (i.e., brandishing)”
• “Pointing a gun while telling someone what to do obviously goes beyond . . . brandishing, and . . . amounts to ‘otherwise using’ a firearm.”
• describing our scope of review as deferential because “§ 3E1.1 determinations involve an overall legal decision that is fact-bound, the district court has comparatively great expertise, and the value of uniform court of appeals precedent is limited”
• denial appropriate when defendant who had already pleaded guilty did not assist in recovery of property stolen by co-conspirators

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).