United States v. Eduardo Vargas-Castillo

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Blockburger and stating: “[W]e hold that the indictment charging Vargas with separate counts [under § 841(a)(1) ] for different controlled substances was not multiplicitous and no double jeopardy violation occurred.”
• separate charges for different drugs found at the same time inside the same tire not multiplicitous
• a required element of a 12 U.S.C. § 841 offense is that “the defendant possessed the controlled substance with the intent to deliver it to another person”
• search of spare tire did not “reach ‘the degree of intru- siveness present in a strip search or body cavity search’ ” (quoting United States v. Ramos-Saenz, 36 F.3d 59, 61 (9th Cir. 1994)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).