Matter of Richardson

27 Cited authorities

Salinas v. United States
522 U.S. 52 (1997) Cited 1,250 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the canon of construction requiring a clear statement to alter the federal-state balance of criminal jurisdiction "does not warrant a departure from terms" where the statute's "text . . . is unambiguous on the point under consideration"
United States v. Shabani
513 U.S. 10 (1994) Cited 630 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 846 does not require proof that "a coconspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"
Iannelli v. United States
420 U.S. 770 (1975) Cited 1,217 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the conspiratorial agreement may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the acts and conduct of the coconspirators and the inferences that may be drawn from their acts
Molzof v. United States
502 U.S. 301 (1992) Cited 394 times
Holding that § "2674 bars the recovery only of what are legally considered ‘punitive damages’ under traditional common-law principles"
Whitfield v. United States
543 U.S. 209 (2005) Cited 268 times
Holding that a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act
U.S. v. Jimenez Recio
537 U.S. 270 (2003) Cited 144 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a conspiracy does not automatically terminate when the government makes it impossible for the conspiracy to achieve its ends
Callanan v. United States
364 U.S. 587 (1961) Cited 456 times
Holding that defendant convicted of obstructing commerce by extortion and conspiracy to commit the same had committed “two offenses” such that it was within trial court's discretion to fix separate sentences
U.S. v. Bolden
325 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2003) Cited 146 times
Holding that a § 1956(h) count alleging five statutory objects was valid, observing that "[c]ourts have uniformly upheld multiple-object conspiracies, and they have consistently concluded that a guilty verdict must be sustained if the evidence shows that the conspiracy furthered any one of the objects alleged"
Pierre v. Holder
588 F.3d 767 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 113 times
Holding that BIA's sua sponte invocation of subparagraph (U) as basis for removal violated petitioner's due process rights
Nash v. United States
229 U.S. 373 (1913) Cited 580 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the Sherman Act does not require an overt act for antitrust conspiracy liability
Section 846 - Attempt and conspiracy
21 U.S.C. § 846 Cited 46,933 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding each conspirator responsible for the quantity of drugs distributed by the conspiracy
Section 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
18 U.S.C. § 371 Cited 22,148 times 153 Legal Analyses
Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"
Section 1101 - Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101 Cited 16,945 times 92 Legal Analyses
Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 16,458 times 63 Legal Analyses
Specifying prohibited activities
Section 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments
18 U.S.C. § 1956 Cited 9,874 times 146 Legal Analyses
Defining “specified unlawful activity” to include, inter alia, controlled substance violations, murder, bribery, smuggling, various forms of fraud, concealment of assets, various environmental offenses, and health care offenses
Section 1227 - Deportable aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1227 Cited 8,120 times 43 Legal Analyses
Granting this discretion to the Attorney General
Section 1229a - Removal proceedings
8 U.S.C. § 1229a Cited 6,510 times 8 Legal Analyses
Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”

Matter of Richardson

27 Cited authorities

Holding that the canon of construction requiring a clear statement to alter the federal-state balance of criminal jurisdiction "does not warrant a departure from terms" where the statute's "text . . . is unambiguous on the point under consideration"

Holding that § 846 does not require proof that "a coconspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"

Holding that the conspiratorial agreement may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the acts and conduct of the coconspirators and the inferences that may be drawn from their acts

Holding that § "2674 bars the recovery only of what are legally considered ‘punitive damages’ under traditional common-law principles"

Holding that a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act

Holding that a conspiracy does not automatically terminate when the government makes it impossible for the conspiracy to achieve its ends

Holding that defendant convicted of obstructing commerce by extortion and conspiracy to commit the same had committed “two offenses” such that it was within trial court's discretion to fix separate sentences

Holding that BIA's sua sponte invocation of subparagraph (U) as basis for removal violated petitioner's due process rights

Concluding that the Sherman Act does not require an overt act for antitrust conspiracy liability

Holding each conspirator responsible for the quantity of drugs distributed by the conspiracy

Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"

Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

Specifying prohibited activities

Defining “specified unlawful activity” to include, inter alia, controlled substance violations, murder, bribery, smuggling, various forms of fraud, concealment of assets, various environmental offenses, and health care offenses

Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”