United States v. Benkahla

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, in the criminal context, collateral estoppel is part of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy
• applying the § 3A1.4 enhancement to the defendant’s sentence for obstructing an investigation into a terrorism crime listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B)
• rejecting claim that sentence violates Sixth Amendment if it depended on judge-found facts to survive reasonableness review as “too creative for the law as it stands”
• recognizing courts’ “duty to harmonize Guidelines and commentary”
• “Sentencing judges may find facts relevant to determining a Guidelines range by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as that Guidelines sentence is treated as advisory and falls within the statutory maximum . . . .”
• “Here, . . . the terrorism enhancement is doing just what it ought to do: Punishing more harshly than other criminals those whose wrongs served an end more terrible than other crimes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).