United States v. Vidacak

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the 30 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4262 Doc: 148 Filed: 04/09/2025 Pg: 31 of 34 determinative question on abuse of discretion review is “whether the [district] court’s exercise of discretion . . . was arbitrary or capricious”
• noting that the 30 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4281 Doc: 144 Filed: 04/09/2025 Pg: 31 of 34 determinative question on abuse of discretion review is “whether the [district] court’s exercise of discretion . . . was arbitrary or capricious”
• noting that the 30 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4290 Doc: 144 Filed: 04/09/2025 Pg: 31 of 34 determinative question on abuse of discretion review is “whether the [district] court’s exercise of discretion . . . was arbitrary or capricious”
• noting that the 30 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4324 Doc: 147 Filed: 04/09/2025 Pg: 31 of 34 determinative question on abuse of discretion review is “whether the [district] court’s exercise of discretion . . . was arbitrary or capricious”
• “[T]he prima facie showing [for authenticity] may be accomplished largely by offering circumstantial evidence that the documents in question are what they purport to be.”
• “The burden to authenticate under Rule 901 is not high—only a prima facie showing is required.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).