stating only that the penalties under §§ 2252 and 2252A would provide for a mandatory minimum sentence for “a repeat offender with a prior conviction under chapter 109A or 110 of title 18, or under any State child abuse law or law relating to the production, receipt or distribution of child pornography”
Summary of this case from United States v. LockhartNos. 104358, 104359.
May 31, 1996.
Leave to Appeal Denied May 31, 1996:
Court of Appeals Nos. 185935, 186176.
stating only that the penalties under §§ 2252 and 2252A would provide for a mandatory minimum sentence for “a repeat offender with a prior conviction under chapter 109A or 110 of title 18, or under any State child abuse law or law relating to the production, receipt or distribution of child pornography”
Summary of this case from United States v. LockhartFull title:LEWIS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan
Date published: May 31, 1996
That word-for-word parallel between the two statutes is made obvious by laying them side by side. Moreover,…
United States v. ZhangIn 1996, Congress enacted the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”) to protect “proprietary economic information…