United States v. Hunerlach

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plain error review applies to a sufficiency of the evidence argument when a defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on sufficiency of the evidence grounds, but. failed to articulate the specific sufficiency of the evidence claim later- raised on appeal
• applying plain error review where a defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal but failed to articulate the specific sufficiency-of-the- 1 At trial, Solis argued that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29, in part, because (1
• new grounds for acquittal not raised to the district court are reviewed for plain error
• plain error review applies to a specific sufficiency of the evidence claim not previously raised – even where general sufficiency of the evidence challenge was made in connection with Rule 29 motion
• “Even if we were to assume that the district court committed plain error, . . . Appellant must show that the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’”
• “Since the record does not show that Appellant raised this issue to the district court, our review of the district court’s decision to deny the motion for judgment of acquittal on that basis is only for ‘plain error.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).