United States v. Pablo Varela-Rivera

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that issue is preserved for appeal where substance was “thoroughly explored” in district court (quoting United States v. Palmer, 3 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1993))
• recognizing that issue is preserved for appeal where substance was “thoroughly explored” in district court (quoting United States v. Palmer, 3 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1993))
• concluding that Apprendi does not render section 960 facially unconstitutional
• holding even when it is “questionable how thoroughly the motion is explored,” if the denial of the motion is “definitive,” as it was here, the objection is preserved and reviewed for an abuse of discretion
• charged with importation of cocaine and methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute
• “[E]xpert testimony on the modus op-erandi of drug trafficking organizations is inadmissible in cases where, as here, the defendant is not charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).