Kevin B. McCall v. Cynthia C. McCall

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding no abused discretion when court “evaluated all pertinent factors [and] simply exercised its statutory discretion to deny the motion”
• holding abuse of discretion but not reasonableness applies given similarities to § 3582(c)(2)
• affirming the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction for a still-within-Guidelines sentence because the court, “having evaluated all pertinent factors, simply exercised its statutory discretion to deny the motion”
• “[T]he decision whether to wield the resentencing authority granted by the First Step Act is one committed to the court’s discretion”.
• “[I]t is more plausible, on the record before us, that the district court, having evaluated all pertinent factors, simply exercised its statutory discretion to deny the motion.”
• “[W]e determined, in the context of [an] 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, that the district 5 See United States v. Concepcion, --- F.3d ---, 2021 WL 960386, at –8, (1st Cir. 2021

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).