United States v. Michael R. Throneburg

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the district court \could merge [duplicative] convictions after the jury verdicts are recorded\
• concluding that Michigan crime of “entering without breaking,” see Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.111 (1979), does not define crime of burglary under Taylor definition because unprivileged entry is not an essential element
• holding that it was permissible to try a defendant with separate counts for possession of a handgun and possession of ammunition as long as convictions for the separate offenses merged for sentencing purposes
• dismissing the defendant’s argument that he was unduly prejudiced due to the government’s presentation of a felon in possession of firearm count and a felon in possession of ammunition count, even though the two counts merged for sentencing purposes
• “[T]he district court has discretion in deciding whether to require the prosecution to elect between multiplicitous counts.,.: [and] [w]e may reverse only for an abuse of discretion.”
• separate No. 20-4078 United States v. Grant Page 5 convictions for simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under § 922(g)(1) are multiplicitous and merge at sentencing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).