Roy Tippitt v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the Commission’s commentaries do not deserve deference unless the Guidelines are “genuinely ambiguous” (internal quotation omitted)
• applying Kisor to the Guidelines and concluding that a court may defer to commentary only if the Guidelines are ambiguous
• “The specific governs the general in the interpretation of a legal text.”
• invalidating § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(i)’s $500-per-access-device multiplier
• invalidating § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(i)’s $500-per-access-device multiplier
• only the Guidelines go through notice-and-comment rulemaking

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).