United States v. Ryan Holness

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that looking past waiver is more appropriate where “the facts have been sufficiently developed to readily permit evaluation of an alternative legal theory”
• finding error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt even where “the government’s case was predominantly circumstantial”
• finding error harmless beyond a reasonable- doubt even where “the government’s case was predominantly circumstantial”
• noting the “oft-cited rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• applying New Amsterdam to explain that the court possess the discretion under appropriate circumstances to disregard the parties’ inattention to a particular argument or issue
• noting the “oft-cited rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).