United States v. Daniel Siddons

How courts have described this case

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

• describing the defendant's \substantial burden\ under Fed R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2) if he seeks to withdraw an accepted plea
• stating that “the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution prohibits application of a law enacted after the date of the offense that inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed” and that “[t]he ex post facto inquiry has two prongs: (1
• plenary review applies to a district court’s legal interpretation and application of the Guidelines
• “[D]etermination of loss . . . is never confined to the date of the charged mailing or wiring, but always encompasses all relevant conduct that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).