Hamlin v. Mensch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant’s general disagreement with the district court was insufficient to preserve his later specific claim of error on appeal
• holding general substantive-reasonableness objection did not preserve specific contention that court erred by relying on bare arrest record
• noting that because defense counsel first raised the issue of pending charges, “some responsive com- ment from the court [was] understandable”
• declining to extend Holguin-Hernandez to the argument that the sentencing court improperly relied on a “bare arrest record”
• concluding insufficient objection to preserve bare- arrest-record assertion
• “[W]e have rejected the contention that the district court may not rely on factors already encompassed within the guidelines to support a non- guidelines sentence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).