United States v. Scott Plumley, United States of America v. Jeremy Thomas Kaune,appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that § 2J1.2(b)(l) “does not impose an additional ‘seriousness’ requirement beyond the fact of a violent threat”
• observing that the interpretation of state disciplinary rules as they apply in federal court “is a matter of federal law” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that prosecutor’s remark, “here’s what happened in my view,” should be interpreted as a fair comment on the evidence
• prosecution’s remarks about plea agreements constituted “fair response and rebuttal” and thus did not warrant reversal
• prosecutor’s questions about witness’s obligation to provide truthful testimony not improper vouching
• reviewing district court’s factual findings for clear error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).