United States v. Ramon Vargas, United States of America v. Raul Chaidez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “an IJ’s 6 application of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false in 7 everything] may at times be appropriate” (quotations and citations omitted)
• finding that the district court “never discussed … the appropriateness of the fine … and never mentioned the presentence report’s analysis of [defend- ant’s] financial condition”
• defendant’s “ability to supply cocaine ..., to sell it on credit, and to negotiate its price, did not put him in the role of manager or supervisor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).