HomeCasesUnited States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons

E.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 2025

NC / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycriminal

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Hazel, 696 F.3d 473, 478 (4th Cir. 2012)' — court found no such Fourth Circuit case (citation appears fabricated). Outcome: Warning; Allowed to file corrected brief.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; Allowed to file corrected brief; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Warning; Allowed to file corrected brief in E.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Warning; Allowed to file corrected brief in E.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateOct 3, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning; Allowed to file corrected brief

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning; Allowed to file corrected brief

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Hazel, 696 F.3d 473, 478 (4th Cir. 2012)' — court found no such Fourth Circuit case (citation appears fabricated).
Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Angel, 102 F.3d 1066 (4th Cir. 1996)' for a quoted rule; court found no such Fourth Circuit decision or matching quoted language.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1293 (4th Cir. 2006)' and attributed the quote 'any uncertainty should be resolved in the defendant's favor.' The court noted the cited Brehm reference is to a different circuit and does not contain that quoted language.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 829 (4th Cir. 2000)' for language about burdens the government cannot meet; court found the citation is to a different circuit and does not contain the asserted language.
False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 232 (4th Cir. 1999)' and quoted that packaging weight should not be included; court found Edwards does not contain that quoted language (false quotation).
Misrepresented: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Harrision, 918 F.2d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 1990)' for a statement that laboratory testing is more precise; court noted the correct case is in a different circuit (Fifth) and does not contain that quoted text.

Questions this record answers

What happened in United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons?: Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Hazel, 696 F.3d 473, 478 (4th Cir. 2012)' — court found no such Fourth Circuit case (citation appears fabricated). Outcome: Warning; Allowed to file corrected brief.
Why does United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Warning; Allowed to file corrected brief in E.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al.E.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Letts v. Avidien TechnologiesE.D. North Carolina · Dec 16, 2024same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLCE.D. North Carolina · Jan 13, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al.W.D. North Carolina · Jun 16, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Caso No. 0000140/2025-00TSJ Gran Canaria (Spain) · Feb 10, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified 14 Os 95/25iOberster Gerichtshof · Oct 7, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateOct 3, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning; Allowed to file corrected brief

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Hazel, 696 F.3d 473, 478 (4th Cir. 2012)' — court found no such Fourth Circuit case (citation appears fabricated).

Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Angel, 102 F.3d 1066 (4th Cir. 1996)' for a quoted rule; court found no such Fourth Circuit decision or matching quoted language.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1293 (4th Cir. 2006)' and attributed the quote 'any uncertainty should be resolved in the defendant's favor.' The court noted the cited Brehm reference is to a different circuit and does not contain that quoted language.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 829 (4th Cir. 2000)' for language about burdens the government cannot meet; court found the citation is to a different circuit and does not contain the asserted language.

False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 232 (4th Cir. 1999)' and quoted that packaging weight should not be included; court found Edwards does not contain that quoted language (false quotation).

Misrepresented: Case Law | Memorandum cited 'United States v. Harrision, 918 F.2d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 1990)' for a statement that laboratory testing is more precise; court noted the correct case is in a different circuit (Fifth) and does not contain that quoted text.

Questions this record answers

What happened in United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons?

Why does United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons?

Which source supports this United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud Simmons summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.