DAVIS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Miller, 771 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …82). Because the Sherman Act punishes the mere act of conspiring, overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy need not be alleged. Nash, 229 U.S. at 378, 33 S.Ct. at 782. United States v. Inryco, Inc., 642 F. 2d 290 (9th Cir.1981), cert. dismissed, 454 U.S. 1167, 102 S.Ct. 1045, 71 L.Ed.2d 324 (1982), does not support appellants’ position that an overt act is an essential element of a section one violation. The narrow issue before us in Inryco was when the statute of limitations began to run on a continuing…
• United States v. Buckley, 689 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …ly answered this question. It appears that we have conducted a searching de novo review of an indictment dismissed before trial on sufficiency grounds. See, e.g., United States v. Inryco, Inc., 642 F. 2d 290, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. dismissed, 454 U.S. 1167, 102 S.Ct. 1045, 71 L.Ed.2d 324 (1982). We follow this procedure here. . Although Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c) requires that the indictment be a “plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged,” the cour…
• United States v. Dario Dicesare, 765 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …ars. A bill of particulars is appropriate when the indictment is insufficient to per- . mit the preparation of an adequate defense. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(f); see, e.g., United States v. Inryco, Inc., 642 F. 2d 290, 295 (9th Cir.1981), cert. dismissed, 454 U.S. 1167, 102 S.Ct. 1045, 71 L.Ed.2d 324 (1982). DiCesare and Flannery requested a bill for three reasons: (1) to obtain the names of any unknown coconspirators; (2) to determine the exact date on which the conspiracy allegedly began; and (3) to delineate…