United States v. Melvin Robinson, A/K/A Sweets Melvin Robinson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding death was not sufficiently remote to render statute inapplicable where only one other person existed in the distribution chain in addition to the defendant and the decedent
• using “reasonably foreseeable” test to hold conspirator liable for drug death for sentencing purposes even though conspirator did not sell drugs to decedent
• “Plainly, if we read a particularized foreseeability requirement into [§ 841(b)(1)(C)], we would limit the applicability of the section significantly and frustrate Congress’ intent.”
• “It was reasonably foreseeable to [the defendant] that [the intermediary] would deliver the drugs to someone else.... ”
• where alleged defect in venue is not clear on the indictment’s face, a defendant “must raise the issue of improper venue before the jury returns a verdict”
• the controlled substance need not be the proximate cause of the victim’s death

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).