Cela v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that Presley v. Georgia clarified the district court’s responsibility under the third Waller prong to consider alternatives even if not offered by the defendant
• “We need not resolve which standard of review applies to this objection, however, because we conclude that Moss’s argument does not prevail even under de novo review.”
• “[W]e are skeptical that clear error review would be appropriate in this instance, where arguably ‘the only way for [plaintiff] to raise ... arguments [on that point] [was] to reiterate them.”
• “[w]e are skeptical that clear error review would be appropriate in this instance, where arguably the only way for Moss to raise . . . arguments on that point was to reiterate them.”
• “[W]e are skeptical that clear error review would be appropriate in this instance, where arguably ‘the only way for [the plaintiff] to raise . . . arguments [on that point] [was] to reiterate them.’” (third and fourth alterations in original
• “[W]e are skeptical that clear error review would be appropriate in this instance, where arguably ‘the only way for [the plaintiff] to raise . . . arguments [on that point] [was] to reiterate them.’” (third and fourth alterations in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).