In re Bautista

16 Cited authorities

Taylor v. United States
495 U.S. 575 (1990) Cited 5,238 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "burglary" as used in the Armed Career Criminal Act was to be given its "generic, contemporary meaning" to avoid a scenario in which "a person ... would, or would not, receive a sentence enhancement based on exactly the same conduct, depending on whether the State of his prior conviction happened to call that conduct ‘burglary’ "
Jones v. United States
529 U.S. 848 (2000) Cited 608 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "statutory term ‘affecting ... commerce,’ ... when unqualified, signal Congress’ intent to invoke its full authority under the Commerce Clause"
Russell v. United States
471 U.S. 858 (1985) Cited 223 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an apartment building being rented to tenants was "unquestionably" being used in an activity affecting interstate commerce
U.S. v. Castillo-Rivera
244 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 134 times
Holding that the interstate commerce element is "'merely a jurisdictional basis'" and, therefore, finding the state offense to be an aggravated felony
United States v. Gullett
75 F.3d 941 (4th Cir. 1996) Cited 63 times
Holding that Government did not have to establish that defendant intended to damage rental property; it was sufficient that the Government showed that "the defendant acted intentionally or with willful disregard of the likelihood" that damage to the rental property would result from his actions
U.S. v. Corona
108 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 48 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, when the statute is ambiguous, the "same elements" test of Blockburger is the appropriate interpretive tool
U.S. v. Celaj
649 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 21 times
Holding that in a prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, "the burden of proving a nexus to interstate commerce is minimal."
United States v. Wiktor
146 F.3d 815 (10th Cir. 1998) Cited 35 times
Concluding that the district court correctly instructed the jury as to the mens rea required for § 844, which is a statute similar to § 844(f) —i.e. , "maliciously" as used in § 844 can be either intentional or reckless conduct
McFadden v. U.S.
814 F.2d 144 (3d Cir. 1987) Cited 30 times
Holding § 844(f) [enacted simultaneously with § 844(i)] incorporates common law meaning of "maliciously," after examining legislative history
Section 922 - Unlawful acts
18 U.S.C. § 922 Cited 60,518 times 181 Legal Analyses
Finding that "even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce"
Section 1101 - Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101 Cited 16,365 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,718 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
8 U.S.C. § 1231 Cited 7,806 times 13 Legal Analyses
Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver
Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status
8 U.S.C. § 1229b Cited 5,083 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”
Section 844 - Penalties
18 U.S.C. § 844 Cited 2,368 times 25 Legal Analyses
Using or carrying explosive device during commission of felony, maximum 10 years; subsequent offense, maximum 20 years
Section 1240.8 - Burdens of proof in removal proceedings
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 Cited 305 times 4 Legal Analyses
Applying "clearly and beyond doubt" burden to "proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival" or "[a]liens present in the United States without being admitted"

In re Bautista

16 Cited authorities

Holding that "statutory term ‘affecting ... commerce,’ ... when unqualified, signal Congress’ intent to invoke its full authority under the Commerce Clause"

Holding that an apartment building being rented to tenants was "unquestionably" being used in an activity affecting interstate commerce

Holding that the interstate commerce element is "'merely a jurisdictional basis'" and, therefore, finding the state offense to be an aggravated felony

Holding that Government did not have to establish that defendant intended to damage rental property; it was sufficient that the Government showed that "the defendant acted intentionally or with willful disregard of the likelihood" that damage to the rental property would result from his actions

Holding that, when the statute is ambiguous, the "same elements" test of Blockburger is the appropriate interpretive tool

Holding that in a prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, "the burden of proving a nexus to interstate commerce is minimal."

Concluding that the district court correctly instructed the jury as to the mens rea required for § 844, which is a statute similar to § 844(f) —i.e. , "maliciously" as used in § 844 can be either intentional or reckless conduct

Holding § 844(f) [enacted simultaneously with § 844(i)] incorporates common law meaning of "maliciously," after examining legislative history

Finding that "even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce"

Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver

Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”

Using or carrying explosive device during commission of felony, maximum 10 years; subsequent offense, maximum 20 years

Applying "clearly and beyond doubt" burden to "proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival" or "[a]liens present in the United States without being admitted"