United States v. Huet

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in a § 922(g) prosecution the Government was not required to prove that the defendant knew of his prohibiting status
• noting that an as-applied attack contends that the a law is unconstitutional, not as written but rather in its 10 application to a specific person under specific circumstances
• stating indictment is generally facially sufficient when “it informs the defendant of the statute he is charged with violating, lists the elements . . . under the statute, and specifies the time period” when violations occurred
• rev’d on other grounds by United States v. Hill, 98 F.4th 473, 483 (3d Cir. 2024)
• requiring a knowing mens rea for only the possession element

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).