United States v. Andy Cherry

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that one stray comment at a sentencing hearing had not established an error
• holding that a “large downward variance” was not unreasonable “in light of the other reasons offered by the district court for the sentence imposed,” even where the court errone- ously concluded that the defendant’s crimes had occurred in a short period of time
• affirming as substantively reasonable a sentence of 120 months where the Guidelines specified a sentencing range of 210 to 262 months of imprisonment
• upholding 43% downward variance because defendant had a “low risk for reoffending,” had taken “extensive” efforts to rehabilitate himself and was not “a run-of-the-mill offender”
• “[Listening to Mr. Beach and his goals, I kind of re-evaluated my life and goals and put myself back on the right track....”
• upholding 43% downward variance even though the appellate court “might have adhered to the Guidelines or imposed a harsher sentence were [it] in the position of the sentencing court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).