United States v. Fadl

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 “use” element of § 2251(a) is satisfied if a child is photographed to create pornography
• concluding that the district court did not double count when one enhancement could theoretically apply in the absence of the other
• rejecting a double-counting argument in a case involving no reference to a prior offense and holding that “[t]he application of § 2G2.1(d)(1) punished Fadl for exploiting different minors, while the § 4B1.5(b
• minors “engaged in sexual- ly explicit conduct”
• minors “engaged in sexual- ly explicit conduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).