United States v. James Hackley, IV

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the “evidence of continuing relationships and repeated transactions” was “sufficient to support an inference of an ongoing relationship” between the defendant and the drug suppliers (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that evidence of ongoing relationships and repeated transactions even where “sparse,” is sufficient to support an inference of an ongoing conspirator relationship
• explaining that we have jurisdiction to review district court’s understanding of its authority
• inferring conspiracy from single drug transaction based in part on “cryptic conversation” between defendant and girlfriend
• “[T]he government must take care not to ask the jury to infer an agreement based on guilt of” underlying offenses alone.
• “Predisposition is not limited only to crimes specifically contemplated by the defendant prior to government suggestion.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).