UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott KARTERMAN, Defendant-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 Rule 32 is satisfied where the district court considered the defendant's objections, \but resolved the disputed facts against him.\
• holding that Rule 32 is satisfied where the district court considered the defendant’s objections, “but resolved the disputed facts against him.”
• concluding that Rule 32 is satisfied when the record indicates the district court considered the defendant’s objections but resolved the disputed facts against him
• finding Rule 32 satisfied where district court stated that he was persuaded that the correct amount of loss was that argued by the govern- ment
• “Although the district court’s findings under Rule 32(c) must be ‘express,’ they need only state the court’s resolution of the disputed issues.”
• necessarily rejected facts under Brady do not include \facts that were 'possibly rejected' or even 'probably rejected' \

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).