Davlin v. Cruickshank

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “the concurrent sentence doctrine rests on the same rationale underlying harmless-error review”
• noting that in such a future challenge a court would evaluate “the claim’s timeliness by reference to when he raised it in the present action” and allow the government “to raise any other defenses that it might wish to advance”
• discussing application of the doctrine when there is “no substantial possibility” that an adverse collateral consequence would result (citation omitted)
• rejecting the defendant’s collateral consequences argument because, “[w]hile the scenario posed by [the defendant] [is] technically all offenses level the same for marijuana and “Converted Drug Weight”
• “[W]hen determining the potential consequences of leaving a sentence unreviewed, we must not engage in unrealistic speculation about the possibility of future harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).