Skip to main content
· 2/7/2011

United States v. Daniel Szymanski

Citations

  • 631 F.3d 794
  • 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2327
  • 2011 WL 350294

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that defendant “must have known, not just that he was receiving something, but that what he was receiving was child pornography”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Merritt, Rogers, White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.