United States v. Christine Annemarie Lennon, Christine A. Lennon

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “DiSantillo held that illegal re-entry be gins, for statute of limitations purposes, when the alien presents himself non-surreptitiously ... at an open point of entry even though immigration personnel failed to react”
• stating that “DiSantillo held that illegal re-entry begins, for statute of limitations purposes, when the alien presents himself non-surreptitiously . . . at an open point of entry even though immigration personnel failed to react”
• declining to address as harmless a claimed error that, when corrected, would have resulted in the same sentencing range
• stating an Ex Post Facto Clause violation occurs if the court fails to use the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of the crime where that version is “more favorable” to the defendant
• “[I]llegal re-entry begins, for statute of limitations purposes, when the alien presents himself non-surrepti- tiously (i.e. using his own name) at an open point of entry even though immigration personnel failed to react.”
• “For the same reason that we will not consider an argument minted at the reply brief stage, we will not consider an argument made by counsel for the first time at oral argument.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).