Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Sepulveda.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Sepulveda Anchor | green | “reliable and specific evidence.” | 10 |
| 2 | United States v. Dominguez | green | “although 'the district court must not speculate concerning the existence of a fact which would permit a more severe sentence under the guidelines,' its reasonable estimate of the intended loss will be upheld on appeal.” | 2 |
| 3 | United States v. Dominguez | green | “district court must not speculate concerning the existence of a fact which would permit a more severe sentence under the guidelines,' its reasonable estimate of the intended loss will be upheld on appeal.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.