United States v. Jerry F. Arnold

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the district court’s reliance on the presentence investigation report was outside the scope of its discretion.”
• concluding that “using a categorical approach, . . . assault with intent to commit sexual battery under Tennessee law is [not] a crime involving the use of force . . . for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(1)(i)”
• concluding, prior to Begay, that assault with intent to commit sexual battery under Tennessee law was not necessarily a crime of violence because the statute encompassed assault accomplished by fraud as well as by force
• looking to § 4B1.2 to define “crime of violence” in § 2K2.1(a)(4)
• \[T]he revised commentary appears to disfavor a wideranging inquiry into the specific circumstances surrounding a conviction.\
• a crime of violence under the career offender provision is interpreted identically to a violent felony under the ACCA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).