United States v. Gagliardi

How courts have described this case

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

• identifying authentication standard as one of “reasonable likelihood” (quoting United States v. Pluta, 176 F.3d 43, 49 (2d Cir. 1999)) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 901(a))
• stating, in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), that certain words, including “entice,” “though not defined in the statute, are words of common usage that have plain and ordinary meanings”
• stating, in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), that certain words, including “entice,” “though not defined in the statute, are words of common usage that have plain and ordinary meanings”
• admitting the defendant’s “e-mails and transcripts of instant-message chats,” despite his claim that these messages were “not originals and could have been subject to editing,” as third-party testimony indicated that these messages “were in fact accurate records”
• defendant showed up at meeting place arranged during the course of exchange of electronic messages
• “The statute punishes the act of enticing or attempting to entice a minor when it is knowingly done; it does not implicate speech.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).