United States of America, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Dustin Lee Honken, Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that mere cessation of obstructive conduct coupled with guilty plea do not make case extraordinary for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1
• noting that what is extraordinary has no \magic formula\ and is instead determined based on totality of circumstances
• suggesting that a case is not extraordinary where defendant attempted to avoid electronic monitoring and kill a witness while on pretrial release
• noting that an obstructive defendant must “do more than merely cease obstructive conduct and plead guilty to the underlying offense to earn a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility”
• noting that an obstructive defendant must “do more than merely cease obstructive conduct and plead guilty to the underlying offense to earn a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility”
• holding defendant was not entitled to acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, even though he pleaded guilty and engaged in no obstructive conduct after pleading guilty, because defendant pursued pre-plea obstructive conduct “in a purposeful and methodical way”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).