United States v. Alvizo-Trujillo

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that language that such a presumption applies is “a significant procedural error”
• finding significant procedural error where district court stated that “[t]he guideline range is presumptively a reasonable range”
• reviewing for plain error where the statement to be construed as an objection “was merely commentary” about the Guidelines range being “unreasonably high” and “was made before the district court announced the improper presumption and the sentence”
• request for variance and statement that guidelines range was unreasonably high did not preserve alleged error because it “was merely commentary and was made before the district court announced the improper presumption and the sentence”
• “In this case, the district court imposed the sentence not as a result of its improper presumption, but as a result of the district court’s assessment of the relevant factors and determination of the minimally adequate sentence, as required by § 3553(a).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).