United States v. Orrego-Martinez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that successive Rule 59(e) motions are improper 8 because “[w]ere such motions permitted, it is conceivable that a dissatisfied litigant could 9 continually seek reconsideration and prevent finality to the judgment”
• stating that incorporation of arguments by reference has been “consistently and roundly condemned” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• incorporating arguments by reference into motions “consistently and roundly condemned” and “any incorporated argument is ordinarily deemed forfeited”
• finding no prejudicial variance despite government's \shift as to the [identity of the] victims\ of defendant's fraud scheme because victims' identity was not an element of the charged offense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).