United States v. Edward F. Nolan, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that uncorroborated speculation that some undefined technology exists to produce pornographic pictures without use of real children is not sufficient basis for rejecting lower court's determination to admit evidence
• “Whether the pictures were the kind of visual depictions the law forbids, i.e., ones involving the ‘use’ of actual minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A
• describing the Dost factors without applying them or endorsing them
• applying Dost factors and citing Nolan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).