The following excerpt is from U.S. v. King, 122 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1997):
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and conclude that, because the question presented by this case was already decided in United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1988), the district court erred when it refused to give the specific intent instruction King requested. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.