United States v. Valarezo-Orobio

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that whether an act “qualifies as relevant conduct is a question of fact reviewed for clear error”
• upholding constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2285 as within Congress’s 5 authority under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10
• “Whether a co-conspirator’s act was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant so that it qualifies as relevant conduct is a question of fact reviewed for clear error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).