United States v. Roberto Torres

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding it “need not decide whether the government constructively amended the indictment, whether it did so plainly, or whether any error prejudiced [the defendant]” because “[e]ven if Olano’s first three prongs are all met . . . its fourth prong is not”
• noting advice-of-counsel defense “is a species of good-faith defense,” merely “negat[ing] the mental state required for the crime”
• specifying that the presumption of prejudice is rebuttable
• \[W]e are careful not to read our precedents to gainsay those of the Supreme Court.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).