United States v. Ahrendt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because “generic objections” do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice, such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error
• concluding that the defendant had “some authority within the conspiracy in that he rented the apartment where drugs were processed, packaged and sold”
• reasoning that the amount an amendment reduces a defendant's guideline range is not dispositive in deciding whether to remand
• noting that a qualified mental health professional's report is an important factor for the trial court to consider when determining competency
• remanding for discretionary - 23 - Foreman, 958 F.3d at 513; see also United States v. Harris, 960 F.3d 1103, 1106 (8th Cir. 2020
• applying plain error review to an argument on appeal where the defendant's generic objection could not \be fairly interpreted as giving notice to the court of the[] . . . very specific issues [on appeal]\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named United States v. Ahrendt

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• United States v. Ahrendt
  D. Maine· 2010-05-17