United States v. Boris Granik, Alexander Iskolsky, and Semyon Bumagin

How courts have described this case

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

• permitting a factual finding based on a stipulation where “the plea agreement makes a stipulation clearly and explicitly” and “the defendant signs the agreement and allocutes to understanding the consequent loss of the right to put the government to its proof”
• “Knowing and voluntary appellate waivers included in plea agreements must be enforced because, if they are not, the covenant not to appeal becomes meaningless and would cease to have value as a bargaining chip in the hands of defendants”
• “Knowing and voluntary appellate waivers included in plea agreements must be enforced because, if they are not, the covenant not to appeal becomes meaningless and would cease to have value as a bargaining chip in the hands of defendants.”
• “Knowing and voluntary appellate waivers included in plea agreements must be enforced because, if they are not, the covenant not to appeal becomes meaningless and would cease to have value as a bargaining chip in the hands of defendants.” (quotation marks omitted)
• “Under our precedents, a stipulation in a plea agreement, although not binding, may be relied upon in finding facts relevant to sentencing.”
• “[T]he stipulation does not bind the sentencing court, and that court must find the loss amount as a fact at sentencing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).