Morley v. Stanley

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 within- guidelines sentence was procedurally unreasonable because it was based on the defendant’s refusal to testify
• noting that procedural reasonableness asks whether the district court “based” its sentence upon impermissible factors
• stating that there is “no constitutional right to file frivolous litigation” (quoting United States v. Miller, 531 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2008)); Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2007
• exercising discretion to remand a procedurally unreasonable sentence on the fourth prong of plain error in light of Gall and Rita
• identifying “the right to meaningful appellate review” as “a substantial right that does not require a showing of prejudice”
• identifying “the right to meaningful appellate review” as “a substantial right that does not require a showing of prejudice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).