United States v. Charles Eldon Lokey, Michael Stutevoss, Christopher Anthony Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “conduct that is part of the same conspiracy is ‘relevant conduct’ under [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.3”
• proof of the conspiracy’s existence before February 1987 was not a constructive amendment of the indictment
• proof of the conspiracy’s existence before February 1987 was not a constructive amendment of the indictment
• “Such evidence [i.e., beyond scope of indictment] was not extrinsic to the conspiracy charged, because it was relevant to establish how the conspiracy came about, how it was structured, and how each appellant became a member.”
• “When conspiracy is charged, an indictment satisfies the requirements of the statute of limitations if the government alleges and proves, at trial or pretrial, that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[E]ven assuming appellants did not know each other, there is sufficient overlap of personnel if a pivotal figure . . . directs and organizes the illegal activity, and has extensive dealings with each of the parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).