United States v. Rodriguez-Lozada

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the English proficiency requirement was “justified by the overwhelming national interest served by the use of English in a United States court” (quoting United States v. González-Vélez, 466 F.3d 27, 40 (1st Cir. 2006))
• explaining that an English proficiency requirement for jurors, including in Puerto Rico, does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury made up of a fair cross section of the community
• stating casual visitor has no expectation of privacy as to apartment of another
• affirming life sentence where the Guidelines-recommended range ran from 360 months to life in light of the \material difference\ between the defendants who entered guilty pleas (and received more lenient sentences
• no reasonable expectation of privacy for a \casual visitor for a brief period\
• no reasonable expectation of privacy for a “casual visitor for a brief period”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).