Kimbley Harold v. Matthew M. Carrick Carolyn M. Berg, Doan Nguyen, David Chafey

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that there is no plain er‐ ror where “the sentencing judge makes clear that the de‐ fendant’s sentence simply does not depend on the resolution of a guideline issue”
• holding that the district court would not abuse its discretion in denying good cause where a circuit split reflected the uncertainty as to the legal issue and the 6 No. 22-2364 defendant knew all he needed to know to raise the argument
• stating that there is no plain er‐ ror where “the sentencing judge makes clear that the de‐ fendant’s sentence simply does not depend on the resolution of a guideline issue”
• stating that there is no plain er‐ ror where “the sentencing judge makes clear that the de‐ fendant’s sentence simply does not depend on the resolution of a guideline issue”
• declining to re- mand for resentencing on plain-error review where “a two- level error in the offense level would not have changed the final recommended guideline range”
• noting a Guidelines error does not \affect the ultimate sentence\ where \the sentencing judge makes clear that the defendant's sentence simply does not depend on the resolution of a guideline issue\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).