United States v. Aurelio Cano-Flores

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, since listening post was in Texas, district court had jurisdiction to authorize wiretapping calls involving devices in Mexico
• holding that “joint and several liability” does not extend to criminal forfeiture but “might well apply to restitution in a criminal case,” under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h), “as a means of protecting victims”
• upholding a district court ruling that an interception of a conversation that originated and was received in Mexico, but was intercepted in Texas, was lawful
• criticizing the circuits that have invoked Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946
• “[T]here is nothing to suggest that Congress intended to rank forfeiture maximization above all normal principles.”
• discussing the contrary view in other circuits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).