United States v. Derrick Crume

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because “[t]he challenged condition, moreover, does not completely prohibit Mr. Crume from interacting with his children”
• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because “[t]he challenged condition, moreover, does not completely prohibit Mr. Crume from interacting with his children”
• holding that the district court properly applied the obstruction of justice enhancement based on evidence that the defendant threatened fellow prisoners with harm if they were to provide information to the Government
• holding that condition barring defendant “from places where minor children under the age of 18 congregate such as residences, parks, beaches, pools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and schools” only barred him from places where children “actually congregate”
• holding that without any findings that the defendant had used his computer for anything beyond simple possession of child pornography, we could not sanction such a broad ban on an important medium of communication, commerce, and information-gathering
• holding that without any findings that the defendant had used his computer for anything beyond simple possession of child pornography, we could not sanction such a broad ban on an important medium of communication, commerce, and information-gathering

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).