United States v. Neville Carl Simpson, A/K/A \Evon Dixon\

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that for the rule of lenity to apply “the provision of law at issue must be ambiguous”
• holding that the rule of lenity applies to the mandatory Guidelines
• concluding that misdemeanors under state law, including “distribution of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and simple possession of marijuana after a prior conviction for any controlled substance offense, were all punishable as felonies under the CSA”
• determining that a district court is not required to “recalculate a defendant’s Guidelines range to account for . . new Guidelines provisions”
• applying the rule of lenity to sentencing guidelines because one of the purposes of the rule of lenity is “to maintain the proper balance between Congress, prosecutors, and courts” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• in order for the rule of lenity to apply to a Guideline, the Guideline \must be ambiguous\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).