United States v. Walter Coatoam

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 confusion arising as a result of Congress inadvertently enacting a second subsection was “not surprising given the length and breadth of the Crime Control Act”
• applying the rule of surplusage that “discourages courts from adopting a reading of a statute that renders any part of the statute mere surplusage”
• stating that the “very language of the statute . . . compels our conclusion that Congress intended . . . to cross-reference readers to a related statute” instead of the 20230738-CA 9 2026 UT App 1 State v. Allred statute indicated in the text
• correcting a scrivener’s error that cross-referenced the wrong subsection of an act
• effectively correcting mistaken cross-reference because reading the statute literally would “produce[] an absurd result”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).