Legal Opinion

United States v. Harrell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 17, 2011No. 10-30176PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:

Tia Latrice Harrell raises a question of first impression in our Circuit: whether the “relating to” parentheticals within 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c) limit the statute’s otherwise clear articulation of which offenses may serve as predicates for application of § 1028A(a). 1 We publish to make clear that the “relating to” parentheticals do not limit the statute’s effect, but serve simply as descriptive aids.

I

Harrell knew that she would never be approved to visit the Washington Corrections Center in Shelton, Washington. The center was trying to combat a growing problem…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. GonzalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. United States v. ShabaniSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Callanan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. United States v. James Cabaccang, United States of America v. Richard T. Cabaccang, United States of America v. Roy Toves CabaccangCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Earnest Woods, Ii v. Santos CervantesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  2. United States v. Lkav, Juvenile MaleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  3. Bronstein v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2012
  4. Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  5. United States v. Abhijit PrasadCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API