United States v. David Rainey

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that two indictments may both be outstanding if jeopardy has not attached
• vacating dismissal of indictment where the allegations did “not exactly recite that Rainey knew a congressional investigation was pending, but the indictment as a whole fairly import[ed] the element.” (alterations and quotation marks omitted)
• vacating dismissal of indictment where the allegations did “not exactly recite that Rainey knew a congressional investigation was pending, but the indictment as a whole fairly import[ed] the element,” (alterations and quotation marks omitted)
• “[Ejven in a criminal case, a statute’s purpose may be a ‘consideration [that] strongly support[s]’ a textual interpretation.”
• “[Under 18 U.S.C. § 3731,] the Government continues to be bound by the thirty-day requirement, but the judgment becomes final, and the clock begins to run, only after the disposition of a timely filed motion to reconsider”.
• “[Under 18 U.S.C. § 3731,] the Government continues to be bound by the thirty-day requirement, but the judgment becomes final, and the clock begins to run, only after the disposition of a timely filed motion to reconsider”.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).