United States v. Lorenzo Nichols, Howard Mason

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a court may “clarif[y]” its findings while an appeal is pending but may not substantively alter its judgment
• noting that district court’s “simpl[e] clarification]” of its judgment did not run counter to rule
• observing that, although' a notice of appeal generally di vests the district court of jurisdiction, the court can still “act in aid of [the] appeal” by clarifying a previous order (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that an effective notice of appeal deprives the district court of jurisdiction to change a sentence, but a district court may still clarify its findings “in aid of the appeal” (citation omitted)
• “We decline to extend Pumett into an automatic adjournment rule every time the district court inquires further into competency.”
• “In deciding that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, a court may rely not only on psychiatrists’ reports indicating competency but also on its own observations of the defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).