District of Columbia· 5/12/2003
United States v. Shah
Citations
- 263 F. Supp. 2d 10
- 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7938
- 2003 WL 21087015
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 28 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”
- “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 25 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”
- “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 28 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”
- “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 25 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”
- “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 27 review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”
- “Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 1 || review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lamberth
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.