United States v. Medina-Villa

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the “vast majority of states do not forbid consensual sexual intercourse with a 17-year old . . . indicates that such conduct is not necessarily abusive”
• “When interpreting the Guidelines, we must give meaning to all its words and render none superfluous.”
• “When interpreting the Guidelines, we must give meaning to all its words and render none superfluous.”
• California Penal Code § 288(a) is a categorical match to the generic definition of “sexual abuse of a minor”
• a conviction under CPC § 288(a) constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor”
• “[g]iven that our holding [in Estrada-Espinoza] was intended to define statutory rape laws only, Estrada-Espinoza in no way undermines our prior conclusion that ‘[t]he use of young children for the gratification of sexual desires constitutes abuse.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).