State of West Virginia v. Silvan Jobe

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant didn’t preserve her challenge to the denial of a mitigating-role adjustment because she was “alleging an error in the district court’s explanation” rather than the “content of the presentence report”
• requiring a “contemporaneous objection” to a “court’s explanation for a sentence” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating in a criminal case that “joint trials are ordinarily more efficient in cases where the evidence against multiple defendants is overlapping and intertwined” (citation modified)
• holding failure to do so plainly erroneous
• “To preserve an appellate issue involving the district court’s explanation for a sentence, the defendant must lodge a contemporaneous objection.”
• “To preserve an appellate issue involving the district court’s explanation for a sentence, the defendant must lodge a contemporaneous objection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).