United States v. Leonel Ruiz

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that different participants indicated that transactions were not part of same conduct or scheme, even if transactions were similar
• noting that gap in cocaine sales while defendant was incarcerated or without a supplier would not signify end of course of conduct
• noting that gap in cocaine sales while defendant was incarcerated or without a supplier would not signify end of course of conduct
• finding that the charged offenses did not amount to relevant conduct because the participants were dif- ferent and there was a two-year gap in the activity
• reviewing case law and concluding that 2 years is not an inherently unacceptable gap of time
• “In particular, if the acts are similar in nature to those of the charged crime, even a substantial gap in time may not destroy the relevance of the acts to the determination of the defendant’s intent in committing the charged conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).