Ninth Circuit· 3/18/2010

United States v. Rocha

Citations

598 F.3d 1144
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5603
2010 WL 1006501

How courts have described this case

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

noting in dictum that the Supreme Court has \recognized exceptions\ to the fair presentation requirement \where the State has actually passed upon the claim” (quoting Castilla v. Peoples
\[A]n administrative agency is not disqualified from changing its mind.” (quoting NLRB v. Iron Workers
noting that \most jurisdictions 'deem the animus of the possessor irrelevant’!;] ... Pennsylvania follows the majority view” (quoting Lyons v. Andrews
holding that defendant did not use a dangerous weapon when he used his bare hands to pull someone’s feet out from under them, slamming them onto a concrete floor
holding that a federal prisoner, by pulling a fellow inmate’s ankles and forcing him to the floor, did not commit an assault with a “dangerous weapon” under the federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113
holding that the mere use of a body part does not constitute use of a “dangerous weapon” because the statute separately punished assault by striking, beating, or wounding, indicating congressional intent that a defendant use a weapon or some other object to perpetrate the offense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nelson, Bybee, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

48 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Rocha

14 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.