United States v. Armel

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “a key purpose of the explanation requirement is to allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that the appellate court must have enough information about the justification for the sentence to conduct a “meaningful review” (quoting United States v. Henry, 545 F.3d 367, 386 (6th Cir. 2008))
• noting that appellate courts “will carefully scrutinize unusual and severe conditions”
• rejecting argument that the First Amendment prohibited prosecution for the statement, “You come and try to pull on me . . . [y]ou will die. Not by my hand, by the hand of God. Or maybe by my hand, but it will be self- defense”
• because the district court did not provide an adequate explanation, the court could not “determine the reasonableness of the challenged special conditions” on appeal
• “Statements constitute a ‘true threat’ if ‘an ordinary reasonable recipient who is familiar with the[ir] context . . . would interpret [those statements] as a threat of injury.’” (quoting United States v. Roberts, 915 F.2d 889, 891 (4th Cir. 1990))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).