United States v. Max Budziak

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 jury instruction defining “distribution” under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 was not plain error because the Ninth Circuit “had not yet resolved the issue” of whether “distribution” included file-sharing programs
• affirming a distribution conviction, where FBI “agents actually downloaded shared files containing child pornography from an IP address registered to” the defendant
• affirming a distribution conviction, where FBI “agents actually downloaded shared files containing child pornography from an IP address registered to” the defendant
• finding no \invited\ error because the record did \not reflect that [defendant] intentionally abandoned or rejected the element of [an] instruction he now asserts the court should have included\
• “While we have no reason to doubt the government’s good faith in such matters [referring to Rule 16 requests], criminal defendants should not have to rely solely on the government’s word that further discovery is unnecessary.”
• “While we have no reason to doubt the government’s good faith in such matters [referring to Rule 16 requests], criminal defendants should not have to rely solely on the government’s word that further discovery is unnecessary,”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).