Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
First Circuit· 3/19/2009

United States v. Ahrendt

Citations

  • 560 F.3d 69
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5757
  • 2009 WL 709410

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).

Judges: Howard, Lipez, Meritt, Merritt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Ahrendt

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.