United States v. Jon Harold Royal

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of prior drug transactions and convictions was admissible to show relationship between co-conspirators
• concluding that “on or about” instruction did not constitute plain error because “the facts of the case eliminate the possibility that the jury could have convicted the Defendant for acts barred by the statute of limitations”
• noting that intrinsic evidence is admissible to allow the jury to “evaluate all the circumstances under which the defendant acted” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “[T]he Pre-sentence Report notified [the defendant] that the quantity of cocaine would be relevant in determining his sentence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).