United States v. Arthur Nathaniel Young

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “constructive amendments of the indictment ... are reversible per se, and variances ... are evaluated under the harmless error doctrine.”
• holding “interstate or foreign commerce” was a “unitary” concept in 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1)
• where court inferred that defense strategy was to seek an acquittal based on the discrepancy between the indictment and the evidence, defendant could not claim any prejudicial lack of notice
• “[C]ourts distinguish between constructive amendments of the indictment, which are reversible per se, and variances between indictment and proof, which are evaluated under the harmless error doctrine.”
• “Mr. Young was not indicted for receiving one particular firearm and then convicted for receiving another. The factual basis for the indictment is identical to that for the conviction .... Stirone [is] not applicable.”
• \The particular predicate for jurisdiction is an essential element of any offense.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).