United States v. Joseph Pirosko

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant “waived his right” to make an argument on appeal that he did not include in his motion to suppress at the district level
• noting that “[r]eversal [for a district court’s Rule 16 error] is appropriate only if the abuse was not harmless error” (internal quotation marks and cita- tion omitted)
• denying a Franks hearing where defendant alleged that he might be able to point to a misstatement if he were allowed to examine the government’s software
• the Government does not have “a blank 17 check to operate its file-sharing detection software sans scrutiny”
• pattern-of-activity enhancement upheld based on corroborated, out-of-court letters submitted by the defendant’s two victim-daughters
• “It is common knowledge that a USB drive functions as an external storage device. These drives store files when an individual places those files onto the device. 16 No. 19‐2853 These drives do not come pre‐loaded with child pornogra‐ phy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).