United States v. Philip Hollinger

How courts have described this case

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

• district court has discretion to determine when the “distinct statement of the matter to which counsel objects and the grounds of the objections are stated” pursuant to Rule 30(d)
• failure to make timely objection to dis- trict court’s erroneous reading of final instruction precluded review under earlier version of Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d) that did not expressly authorize plain-error review for forfeited er- rors
• \[S]pecific and distinct objections voiced in an earlier instructions conference held in the presence of a court reporter will be considered timely under [Rule 30(d)] . . . . [W]e shall henceforth allow counsel to incorporate [objections] by reference.\
• approving the practice disapproved in Dunn

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).