United States v. Ismael Corrales-Portillo

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the district court’s finding that “the large quantity of drugs recovered” indicated defendants “were deeply involved in criminal activity” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• declining to follow Stokes where “there is nothing in the record” to indicate that the district court’s allegedly improper inference “was a principal basis” for the sentence
• declining to follow Stokes where “there is nothing in the record” to indicate that the district court’s allegedly improper inference “was a principal basis” for the sentence
• “Unlike Pace, this is not a case in which the government could not prove, even by inference, that the defendant was anything more than present in the vehicle or physically proximate to the contraband.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).