United States v. Ceballos

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that DEA agents’ interpretations of “it,” them,” and “both” as referring to methamphetamine shipments was helpful
• concluding that DEA agents’ interpretations of “it,” them,” and “both” as re- ferring to methamphetamine shipments was helpful
• holding that DEA agents with extensive drug investigation experience were properly qualified as experts in drug code
• holding that DEA agents with extensive drug investigation experience were properly qualified as experts in drug code
• holding that DEA agent could testify that certain pronouns used in recorded conversations referred to drugs \because of the agents' vast experience with drug code language\
• explaining that “judges and legislators sometimes use the term jurisdiction to erroneously refer to a court’s authority to issue a specific type of remedy, rather than to the court’s subject-matter jurisdic- tion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named United States v. Ceballos

12 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• United States v. Ceballos
  Eleventh Circuit· 1983-06-10· cited 42×
• United States v. Ceballos
  E.D. New York· 1989-06-30· cited 33×
• United States v. Ceballos
  S.D. Iowa· 2009-01-16· cited 6×
• United States v. Ceballos
  Eighth Circuit· 2010-05-13· cited 5×
• United States v. Ceballos
  Eleventh Circuit· 1983-06-10· cited 4×
• United States v. Ceballos
  First Circuit· 2001-11-21
• United States v. Ceballos
  Ninth Circuit· 1977-09-16
• United States v. Ceballos
  Second Circuit· 1981-11-16
• United States v. Ceballos
  Eleventh Circuit· 1990-11-30
• United States v. Ceballos
  Eleventh Circuit· 1995-12-22
• United States v. Ceballos
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-11-08
• United States v. Ceballos
  First Circuit· 2025-07-08