United States v. George Ancheta

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the district court’s misstatement of jury instructions did not amount to plain error because “the court provided the jury with written instructions that properly stated the government’s burden of proof’
• rejecting defendant's argument that the district court may refuse to apply the perjury enhancement if the court believes the defendant's punishment was already adequate
• where obstruction of justice enhancement was proper on at least one ground, remand is not required
• \It was incumbent upon defense counsel to object if the judge erroneously instructed the jury ... because the slip of the tongue could easily have been corrected before the jury retired to deliberate. The absence of objection suggests that the mistake was not noticeable or confusing.\
• review is for clear error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).