cited Cited "see" United States v. Walters See United States v. Lane, 883 F.2d 1484, 1492 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059 , 110 S.Ct. 872 , 107 L.Ed.2d 956 (1990).

discussed Cited "see" Santiago Tapia v. Robert Tansy (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Larranaga, 787 F.2d 489, 498 (10th Cir.1986); see United States v. Lane, 883 F.2d 1484, 1502 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 872 , 107 L.Ed.2d 956 (1990); United States v. Atwell, 766 F.2d 416, 419-20 (10th Cir.) (trial judge has discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination as long as basic right to confrontation is protected), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 921 , 106 S.Ct. 251 , 88 L.Ed.2d 259 (1985); United States v. Valentine, 706 F.2d 282, 288 (10th Cir.1983).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Janus Industries, Doing Business as Acapulco Smoke Shop, and James B. Janus See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 153 , 91 S.Ct. 1357, 1361 , 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971) (upholding 18 U.S.C. §§ 891-894 , which prohibit extortionate credit transactions but do not expressly require proof of an interstate commerce nexus); see also United States v. Lane, 883 F.2d 1484, 1492 (10th Cir.1989) (upholding 18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2)(C), which prohibits interference with applications for or enjoyment of private employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin but does not expressly require proof of an interstate commerce requirement), cer t. denied, 493 U.S. 1…

cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Cooley See also United States v. Lane, 883 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059 , 110 S.Ct. 872 , 107 L.Ed.2d 956 (1990).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bolin v. Cessna Aircraft Co. See also United States v. Lane, 883 F.2d 1484, 1492 (10th Cir.l989)(“Congress is not required to make ‘particularized findings in order to legislate’ ” under the commerce clause), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 872 , — L.Ed.2d — (1990).