United States v. Sterling Hamilton, Scotty Hamilton, Anthony Bryan Salisbury and Earl Wayne Wright

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Day to a statute prohibiting “engag[ing] in the business of importing . . . explosive materials”
• interpreting “engage in the business of importing . . . explosive materials” to include a “purpose of livelihood or profit”
• “Rule 801(d)(2)(E) explicitly says statements need be ‘in furtherance of the conspiracy,’ not that they ‘further the conspiracy.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).