United States v. James W. Snyder

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the 1995 Amendments “make clear that there is no targeting requirement”
• finding that the court’s providing of the dictionary definition of the term “sale” to include the term “trade” was proper, after the jury sent the judge a note asking whether trading was considered selling
• stating that the 1995 Amendments \make clear that there is no targeting requirement\
• finding that the court’s providing of the dictionary definition of the term \sale\ to include the term \trade\ was proper, after the jury sent the judge a note asking whether trading was considered selling
• finding that the court’s providing of the dictionary definition of the term “sale” to include the term “trade” was proper after the jury sent the judge a note asking whether trading was considered selling
• calling a similar snowy instruction a “classic example of circumstantial evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).