Skip to main content
· 2/25/2002

United States v. Ralph Leyva, Jr.

Citations

  • 282 F.3d 623
  • 2002 Daily Journal DAR 2129
  • 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1717
  • 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2868
  • 2002 WL 257495

How courts have described this case

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

  • distinguishing section 201(b)(2)(B), which criminalizes a quid pro quo for fraud, with sections 201(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C), which have “‘official act’ or ‘official duty’ language”
  • distinguishing section 201(b)(2)(B), which criminalizes a quid pro quo for fraud, with sections 201(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C), which have “‘official act’ or ‘official duty’ language”
  • explaining for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 201, which prohibits bribery of public officials, that “corruptly” “refers to the defendant’s intent to be influenced to perform an act in return for financial gain”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Trott, Thomas, Law

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.