State ex rel. Belle Tire Distribs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that district courts may “impose[] a non-Guidelines sentence based upon section 3553(a) factors already accounted for in the Guidelines range”
• explaining that, “ordinarily,” “a panel of our Court is bound by the decisions of prior panels” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• “[W]e do not require district courts to engage in the utterance of ‘robotic incantations’ when imposing sentences.”
• “[W]e do not require district courts to engage in the utterance of ‘robotic incantations’ when imposing sentences . . . .”
• internal 1Saleh also argues that, if we vacate his convictions in United States v. Saleh, No. 21-2955 (2d Cir. argued March 10, 2023
• “Where, as here, a defendant does not object at sentencing to a district court’s failure to explain its reasoning, we review the procedural challenge for plain error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).