v. Boulder Community Health

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Rule 404(b) evidence was not unduly prejudicial in part because the district court repeatedly gave careful limiting instructions
• explaining that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 31(a) generally requires litigants to “present a single brief”
• noting that Rule 1006 was designed for cell phone extractions because the amount of evidence is so “unwieldly and robust that it would take multiple months (possibly, even years) for a court to examine”
• “A district court’s ‘attach[ing] [of] great weight’ to a few factors does not constitute reversible error[.]”
• “[Appellant]’s mere assertion of a Sixth Amendment violation is not enough to establish that such a violation occurred.”
• “A district court’s attach[ing] [of] great weight to a few factors does not constitute reversible error, and inevitably, [n]ot all § 3553(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).