United States v. Gama-Bastidas

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing the defendant to challenge his indictment for failure to charge a crime even though the objection was raised for the first time at a re-sentencing hearing in the trial court following an appeal
• “Ordinarily, we will not review in a second direct appeal an issue that underlies a previously affirmed conviction.”
• “Ordinarily, we will not review in a second direct appeal an issue that underlies a previously affirmed conviction.”
• “An indictment is sufficient if it sets forth the elements of the offense charged, puts the defendant on fair notice of the charges against which he must defend, and enables the defendant to assert a double jeopardy defense.” (quotation omitted)
• discussing the non-jurisdictional nature of the mandate rule
• neither law of case nor mandate rule jurisdictional

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).