United States v. Jamaal Adeem Atif Singletary, A/K/A Jamal Singletary A/K/A Curtis Singletary Jamaal Singletary

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “our prior decision . . . remains the law of this circuit, and we are bound to respect it, absent an en banc consideration.” (citations omitted)
• holding that proof that “the gun ha[s] traveled in interstate commerce, at some time in the past, [is] sufficient to satisfy the interstate commerce element” of § 922(g)(1)
• holding that “proof ... that the gun had traveled in interstate commerce, at some time in the past, was sufficient to satisfy the interstate commerce element” of the statute
• holding that “proof ... that the gun had traveled in interstate commerce, at some time in the past, was sufficient to satisfy the interstate commerce element” of the statute
• noting that the felon-in-possession statute “addresses items sent in interstate commerce and the channels of commerce themselves, delineating that the latter be kept clear of firearms”
• reiterating that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was within the authority of the Commerce Clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).