United States v. Arnold Maurice Mathis

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that any error in application of enhancement that increased the defendant’s total offense level was harmless when the defendant’s “guidelines range was the same with or without the enhancement”
• holding “that a defendant’s use of a cell phone to call and send text messages constitutes the use of a computer, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1), and warrants imposition of an enhancement under [United States Sentencing Guideline] § 2G2.1(b)(6)”
• rejecting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a § 2251(a) conviction of a defendant who sent a text message to a minor \offer[ing] to pay [the minor] for a picture of [her] genitalia\ and \direct[ing the minor] to take sexually explicit pictures\
• rejecting a sufficiency-of- the-evidence challenge to a § 2251(a) conviction of a defendant who sent a text message to a minor “offer[ing] to pay [the minor] for a picture of [her] genitalia” and “direct[ing the minor] to take sexually explicit pictures”
• rejecting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a § 2251(a) conviction of a defendant who sent a text message to a minor “offer[ing] to pay [the minor] for a picture of [his] genitalia” and “direct[ing the minor] to take sexually explicit pictures”
• rejecting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a § 2251(a) conviction of a defendant who sent a text message to a minor “offer[ing] to pay [the minor] for a picture of [his] genitalia” and “direct[ing the minor] to take sexually explicit pictures”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).