United States v. Samuel Roman, A.K.A. Samuel Mercado Samuel Roman, United States of America v. Oscar Roman, A.K.A. Oscar Mercado

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence was sufficient to support a finding of “crack” when an experienced drug enforcement officer made a “crack” determination based solely on the manner in which the drugs were packaged
• holding that evidence was sufficient to support a finding of \crack\ when an experienced drug enforcement officer made a \crack\ determination based solely on the manner in which the drugs were packaged
• explaining that the government can only meet its \burden by presenting reliable and specific evidence\ (citation omitted)
• stating that district court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous if they are unsupported by substantial evi- dence, lack adequate evidentiary support, are against clear weight of the evidence, or if court has misappre- hended weight of evidence
• reviewing a 3006A application for a psychiatric evaluation to aid in requesting a downward departure at sentencing
• holding also United States v. Cantley, 130 F.3d 1371, 1378 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting “clear error” review of factual findings and referring interchangeably to proof of “amounts and types of controlled substances”); United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 982 (6th Cir. 1998

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).