United States v. Parrett

How courts have described this case

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

• “Plain meaning is examined by looking at the language and design of the statute as a whole.”
• forfeiture statute does not provide authorization for federal prosecutors to restrain substitute assets prior to entry of the order of forfeiture by the district court
• “Plain meaning is examined by looking at the language and design of the statute as a whole.”
• “If the statutory language is not clear, we may examine the relevant legislative history.”
• “Plain meaning is examined by looking at the language and design of the statute as a whole.” (quoting United States v. Wagner, 382 F.3d 598, 607 (6th Cir. 2004))
• despite amendments to 21 U.S.C. § 853, court’s prior interpretation controlled because the changes “did not affect the statutory language on which the . . . court based its decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).