United States v. Ivan Garcia-Paz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that language preceded by the phrase “to wit” in the indictment is mere surplusage that may be disregarded and needs not be proven
• importing the definition of “merchandise” from Title 19 of the U.S. Code into Title 18 because the two statutes were “part of the same act,” even though the Title 19 definition was expressly limited to “the purposes of th[at particular] chapter”
• “The inclusion of the ‘to wit’ phrase in the indictment was mere surplusage . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).