United States v. Pedro Velasco-Medina

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a California burglary conviction was burglary under a modified-categorical approach because Velasco-Medina pled guilty where the indictment alleged “unlawful” entry
• holding that a California burglary conviction was burglary under a modified-cate gorical approach because Velasco-Medina pled guilty where the indictment alleged “unlawful” entry
• holding that post-Cotton, a district court does not lack jurisdiction when an indictment fails to allege an element of the federal offense
• holding that a California bur- glary conviction was burglary under a modified-categorical approach because Velasco-Medina pled guilty where the indictment alleged “unlawful” entry
• holding that Velasco-Medina could not have rea- sonably relied on the possibility of relief under the legal land- scape at the time he entered his guilty plea
• holding that § 440(d) of AEDPA barred Velasco-Medina, who had pled guilty after AEDPA’s, but before IIRIRA’s, effective date, from obtaining § 212(c) relief because IIRIRA § 321 retroactively reclassified his burglary conviction as an aggravated felony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).