United States v. Sharron Bynum

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the improper use of a city councilman’s staff budget, which was allocated from a general fund containing federal funds, fell within Section 666’s reach
• considering Apprendi and stating that “if a statute does not expressly require proof of a nexus between the criminal conduct and the United States, proof of such a connection is not an element of the offense” (citation omitted)
• considering Apprendi and stating that “if a statute does not expressly require proof of a nexus between the criminal conduct and the United States, proof of such a connection is not an element of the offense” (citation omitted)
• “[A] facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law”
• “interpretation” of the sentencing guidelines reviewed de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).