Ex Parte Matthew Leachman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant preserved a reasonableness challenge to a sentence because he had “advocate[d] for a sentence shorter than the one ultimately imposed”
• holding that arguing for a sentence lower than that imposed is sufficient to preserve a challenge to the sentence under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
• holding that, generally, a substantive argument that a sentence is unreasonably long is properly preserved for appeal when one advocates for a particular, or shorter, sentence at the trial court level
• holding that, “where a criminal defendant advocates for a sentence shorter than the one ultimately imposed,” “[n]othing more is needed to preserve the claim that a longer sentence is unreasonable.”
• holding that a criminal defendant 4 USCA11 Case: 20-13815 Date Filed: 04/22/2021 Page: 5 of 7 preserved the issue of the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for review by advocating for a less severe sentence
• holding that appellate courts still review substan- tive reasonableness challenges for an abuse of discretion even in in- stances where a defendant did not necessarily object to their sen- tence but advocated for a shorter sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).