United States v. Pauline Richards, Also Known as Janie Nard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prior offenses qualified as relevant conduct in part because they involved “sales of the same drug”
• holding that witness’s testimony was “extremely vague,” “flatly contradictory,” and based solely on government guesswork
• holding that drug quantities for sentencing purposes can be based on estimates but noting that such estimates cannot be based on vague, uncorroborated testimony or guesswork
• noting that “a court must err on the side of caution” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding there was no plain error where record indicated that there “were regular sales of the same drug . . . occurring seventeen months before the convicted offense”
• remanding for resentencing because a witness’s in-court testimony “flatly contradict[ed]” the government’s drug estimate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).