Stephen M. Crook v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating in an inaccurate information challenge that a judge’s passing comment that the defendant was a poor historian of her past was difficult to construe as a factual finding
• “Pennington’s argu- ments on appeal challenge the district court’s explanation of its sentencing decision,” which are “the kind of post-decision exceptions that Rule 51(a) provides a party need not raise to preserve her appellate rights.”
• chal- lenging the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation of its sentencing decision was a procedural error
• “Pen- nington is incorrect in saying that the ‘unwarranted dispari- ties’ factor in § 3553(a)(6) applies only to defendants across districts and not to co-defendants in the same case.”
• “Pen- nington is incorrect in saying that the ‘unwarranted dispari- ties’ factor in § 3553(a)(6) applies only to defendants across districts and not to co-defendants in the same case.”
• “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(a) provides that a party need not state an ‘exception’ to a ruling the court has already made … to preserve her appellate rights.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).