United States v. Michael John Modena

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 defendant bears the burden of showing that the prosecutorial misconduct at issue is so flagrant that it constitutes plain error
• holding that a condition banning alcohol was an abuse of the district court’s discretion when the presentence report only stated that the probation officer “has no information pertaining to substance abuse/use”
• noting that a magistrate judge is authorized by statute to conduct a Faretta inquiry (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A))
• holding assistance of Graeff. The jury found him guilty on all counts. that the plain error standard applies where the defendant fails At sentencing, McBride raised no objections to the to object to continuing his self-representation
• vacating conditions of release requiring drug counseling and alcohol abstinence in the absence of evidence that the defendant had a substance abuse problem
• where drug- and alcohol-related conditions were imposed, observing that “[njeither alcohol nor drug use played a role in [the instant] crime” of conspiracy to defraud the United States

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).