Yip Gim v. Nagle

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the government did not violate Rule 16(a)(1)(A) by failing to disclose the defendant’s state-court guilty pleas before trial, where it disclosed them as soon as it gained possession
• holding that the district court’s failure to instruct on the buyer-seller theory of defense was not error where the instruction given addressed the substance of the requested buyer-seller instruction
• holding that district court properly refused to give defendant's requested buyer-seller instruction where the court's instructions adequately -4- explained that more than a buyer-seller relationship was required to constitute a conspiracy
• holding that a prior conviction is “final” for purposes of the CSA’s recidivism provisions when all avenues of direct appellate attack have been exhausted (citing United States v. Lippner, 676 F.2d 456, 467 (11th Cir. 1982))
• noting that mere guilty knowledge is an insufficient basis for a conspiracy conviction
• noting that possession of the “government” does not normally extend to local law enforcement offices

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).