Chartrand v. State Road Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant's argument to the district court was \sufficiently different\ from his appellate argument so as to be forfeited
• concluding appellant's \argument in the district court is sufficiently different from the one raised on appeal that the argument is forfeited and will be reviewed for plain error\
• finding no clear or obvious error where defendant acquiesced to characterization of prior convictions as crimes of violence
• construing “its ... recommendations” to be limited by the parties’ agreement to recommend a sentence at the lower end of the applicable guideline range
• “A party seeking to survive the onerous challenge of plain error review ‘must show: (1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear and obvious and which not only (3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights, but also (4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).