Notes of Decisions
Cited in
448
cases (
112 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case:
United States v. Shafer, 573 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Shafer, 573 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 18× “First, the district judge found that, although "sexual act," as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2246 (2), requires one individual to make contact with another individual, the plain language of 18 U.”
United States v. Scott Hayward, 359 F.3d 631 (3d Cir. 2004).
· cites it 10× “] 18 U.S.C. § 2246 (2). Section 2A3.4 applies when a defendant engages in or attempts to engage in abu *640 sive sexual contact.”
United States v. Shafer, 557 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 14× “First, the district judge found that, although "sexual act," as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2246 (2), requires one individual to make contact with another individual, the plain language of 18 U.”
United States v. Ronald Gene Kenyon, Also Known as Ronald G. Bingen, 397 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 5× “” This evidence is sufficient to establish the sexual act of touching another’s genitalia in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2246 (2)(D). See Lee, 232 F.3d at 655 (holding testimony that defendant touched child “between [her] legs” both outside and inside her clothing was sufficient to…”
United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 4× “§§ 2242 , 2243. Section 2244, on the other hand, which prohibits sexual contact, requires “an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of another person.”
United States v. Edward Raiburn, 20 F.4th 416 (8th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 8× “’s move to Des Moines in July 2019 cannot be said to have been preparation for the offense of production of selfie-styled nude images of K.N. weeks later in August 2019.”
United States v. Levian Pacheco Pacheco, 977 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 7× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2246 (5)(A). The panel held that, under § 2246(5)(A), the phrase “pending … deportation” does not require a finding of actual or inevitable removal from the United States.”
United States v. Norman T., 129 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 7× “raises several issues: he challenges the district court’s reading of 18 U.S.C. § 2246 (2)(C); he contests the sufficiency of the evidence on the elements of penetration and intent; he argues the district court erred in allowing the victim to testify; and he contends the district…”
United States v. Jeffrey Stock, 685 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 6× “18 U.S.C. § 2246 (2). Stock’s 1998 Indiana sexual-battery offenses were not—at least as far as we can tell from the record—“comparable or more severe than” the two federal sexual-abuse offenses listed in 42 U.”
United States v. Francis Crowley, 318 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Section 2241(a)(1), the most relevant for purposes of this opinion, prohibits causing or attempting to cause another person to commit a sexual act (specifically defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2246 (2) as including, as to adults, essentially only genital, oral, anal or digital…”
18 U.S.C. § 2246(2): 1 case
18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(D): 1 case
18 U.S.C. § 2246(3): 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.