UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, — v. WILLIAM MICHAEL FORTNEY, —

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no impermissible double counting where, as a result of the grouping rules, an enhancement for endangering human life by manufacturing methamphetamine was not otherwise accounted for in calculating the defendant's offense level
• holding that there was no impermissible double counting where, as a result of the grouping rules, an enhancement for endangering human life by manufacturing methamphetamine was not otherwise accounted for in calculating the defendant’s offense level
• assuming without deciding that such amendments were “subject to substantive due process challenge,” but calling the issue a “serious” one

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).