In Re Samad Sefiane v. the State of Texas

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 did not admit facts supporting sentencing enhancement where he lodged Blakely * objection and replied “No, sir” to court’s inquiry as to “whether he had objections to anything contained or omitted from the [presentence report]”
• noting that, when defendant fails to object to PSR, the Government has met its burden of proving the undisputed facts by a preponderance of the evidence, even after Booker
• holding a Sixth Amendment error harmless because the district court announced an identical alternate sentence after considering the guidelines as advisory only and thus the error did not affect the outcome of the proceeding
• stating that a defendant’s silence “suffice[s] to render a fact undisputed”
• observing that resentencing where it is clear from the record that a Guidelines calculation error was harmless would be “little more than an empty formality, for the sentence the district court would impose on remand is a foregone conclusion”
• where defendant is silent on a specific fact supported in the PSR, such fact is undisputed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).