United States v. Jo-Ann Venturella, Also Known as Jo-Ann Ferretti

How courts have described this case

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

• “One may have more than one residence in different parts of this country or the world, but a person may have only one domicile.”
• “The absurd 7 results canon cited in Dauray . . . is a rule of statutory construction that serves to 8 help resolve ambiguity.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• “Residence is the act or fact of living in a given place for some time, while domicile is a person’s true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere.”
• “[W]hen the interpretation of a statute does not implicate First Amendment rights, it is assessed for vagueness only . . . in light of the specific facts of the case at hand and not with regard to the statute’s facial validity.”
• first citing Katz v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Cir. 2004
• “[W]e are confronted not with a grievous ambiguity in a statute but, rather, with a word susceptible to two meanings, one, which in context is absurd, and the other, which in context is consistent with . . . [c]ongressional expectations. The rule of lenity is inapplicable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).