United States v. Azmat

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that writing a prescription for a controlled substance effects constructive delivery sufficient to satisfy the actus reus for Section 841(a)(1)
• explaining that for a sentencing disparity claim the defendant must point to a similarly situated defendant who received a lesser sentence
• noting that courts “need[] to have more than the crime of conviction and the total length of the sentences to evaluate alleged disparities” and that “[t]he underlying facts of the crime and all of the individual characteristics are relevant”
• explaining that courts “need[ ] to have more than the crime of conviction and the total length of the sentences to evaluate alleged disparities” and that “[t]he underlying facts of the crime and all of the individual characteristics are relevant”
• referring to the FSMB, ASP, and Georgia Guidelines as “published sources generally accepted by the medical community”
• explaining 7 Decisions by the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981, as well as decisions by the Unit B panel of the former Fifth Circuit, are binding precedent on this Court. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).