United States v. Denise Marie Henderson

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the most significant indicator that the district court's sentencing error was harmless was the district court's statement that it was using the Guidelines only as a guide if they were found to be unconstitutional
• listing the purposes of the doctrine as including the “promot[ion of] uniformity, consistency, and the optimal use of the agency’s expertise and experience”
• affirming district court’s admittance of photographs in a criminal trial for a tangentially relevant and somewhat prejudicial purpose
• finding intent to defraud SSA where defendant’s statements were inconsistent, such as telling SSA she had 4 to 5 migraines a week but telling her cosmetic surgeon she had only 1 to 2 a month
• “Evidence is not unfairly prejudicial merely because it hurts a party’s case.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• government must prove that defendant had fraudulent intent for conviction under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(3)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).