United States v. Clifford Kerley

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that the rule of the last antecedent is “not absolute,” but applying the rule where it led to an interpretation of a statute “that not only comports with case law . . . but also makes eminent sense”
• interpreting “any amount determined under a court order or an order of an administrative process pursuant to the law of a State or of an Indian tribe” (emphasis added)
• “Every circuit that has addressed the issue has stated that defendants in [Deadbeat Parents Act] prosecutions cannot collaterally challenge the substantive merits of the underlying support order.”
• “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction . . . is 7 In his Reply, Petitioner attempts to present a vague argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction by alleging that the trial transcripts have been altered. (D.I. 13 at 6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).