United States v. Castagana

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Flores- Figueroa did not require a particular construction of a statute because the statute at issue was not parallel to the statute in Flores-Figueroa
• explaining that “with intent” did not apply to an additional prepositional phrase based on the language of the statute and its legislative history
• declining to apply Flores- Figueroa to 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1), but addressing a specific mens rea requirement that formed its own self- contained phrase
• rejecting the defendant’s constitutional challenge to the jury instructions where he “raised no such First Amendment claim” regarding the statute
• declining to apply Flores- Figueroa to 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1), but addressing a specific mens rea requirement that formed its own self- contained phrase
• rejecting the argument that the court “treat ‘with intent’ the same way the Supreme Court treated ‘knowingly’ in Flores- Figueroa” because “the language of the statute in Flores- Figueroa is not parallel to that of [18 U.S.C.] § 1038(a)(1)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).