United States v. Luis A. Alicea-Cardoza

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting beeper charts, as these were introduced to prove that a co-conspirator had received them, and whether defendant sent them was a separate matter for the jury to decide
• finding that past incidents of sexual contact with minors were 7 sufficiently similar to a subsequent sexual offense and noting that the past acts need only be 8 “similar enough to be probative of intent”
• affirming conviction because variance was non-prejudicial when indictment alleged defendant was a \triggerman\ but evidence proved that he was a \runner\
• finding no prejudice in variance because “error in the indictment was not so grave as to cause [appellant] to defend himself on the wrong grounds, especially when the evidence adduced at trial showed [appellant] to be deeply involved in” the charged conspiracy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).