United States v. Rolando Anderez

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that \[o]ur starting point in interpreting statutes must be the language of the statutes themselves\
• refusing to find that the criminal statute at issue in that case was the “sole source of punishment” for the defendant’s conduct, and remarking that “only the starkest manifestation of contrary intent in the legislative history” could justify an alternative outcome
• \The exculpatory no doctrine developed because this court believed that Congress intended section 1001 to punish only positive false statements that would pervert governmental functions.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).