United States v. Philip A. Chance

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the exception to the de minimis standard applies only where the Hobbs Act violation is directed at an individual and not a business
• noting that even indictment for a crime is insufficient to render it admissible as impeachment, if there is no conviction
• finding that a defendant preserved specific challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence where “his Rule 29 motions were general in nature”
• explaining that the exception to the de minimis standard applies only where the Hobbs Act violation is directed at an individual and not a business
• finding that a defendant preserved his sufficiency challenge because his Rule 29 motions “were general in nature” and were not construed [by the district court] as . . . based on specific grounds”
• finding harmless error where district court provided generalized limiting instruction in final charge to jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).