United States v. Seefried

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a presentence report prepared in connection with a prior conviction is properly consulted by the sentencing district court to determine if the defendant’s prior conviction was for a crime of violence
• noting that in addition to the MacDonald factors, “federal courts, including our own, have considered [an additional factor, namely whether] quick action is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence”
• noting that an 6 additional factor is whether “quick action is necessary to prevent the 7 destruction of evidence”
• holding district court’s use of state PSR from different prior conviction permissible to establish fact of prior conviction considered for ACCA sentence enhancement
• examining section 160.00 of the New York Penal Law, which defines robbery as “forcible stealing” in which a person “uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person”
• \[F]ederal law is applicable in a federal prosecution even when state police officers were involved.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).