STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DAVID HOWARD ABEL

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, although § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to a compassionate release motion brought by a prisoner, it may inform a district court’s discretion
• § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant
• district court abuses its discretion if it relies on clearly erroneous material facts to deny compassionate release
• although § 1B1.13 is not binding, it may “may inform a district court’s discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant”
• “The Sentencing Commission’s statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court’s discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, but they are not binding.”
• “The Sentencing Commission’s statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court’s discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, but they are not binding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).