United States v. Harrell
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- United States v. GonzalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United States v. ShabaniSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Callanan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- 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
- Earnest Woods, Ii v. Santos CervantesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- United States v. Lkav, Juvenile MaleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Bronstein v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2012
- Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- United States v. Abhijit PrasadCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.