United States v. Arlene Marie Frokjer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “we see no reason why Booker –which left intact §§ 3742(a) and (b)–should alter our rule that a district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward is unreviewable”
• holding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not “alter our rule that a district court’s decision not to depart downward is unreviewable”
• noting that Booker left § 3742(a) intact, refusing to review the extent of a departure, but conducting a general review for reasonableness
• holding “there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor arguing that the evidence proved that [the defendant] was lying” where the charge' involved making false statements
• declining to find tactical waiver because record not clear enough to determine counsel's state of mind
• noting that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).