United States v. Carl Jennings (95-3317) John Stepp (95-3318)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that recalculation of drug quantity altered the prior determination of another variable, previous drug production
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to substitute counsel raised by codefendants one day before the trial was set to begin
• concluding that a motion for substitution of counsel, filed the day before trial, was untimely
• holding that sentencing upon general remand “is to be de novo,” requiring the district court to consider new objections to the presentence report
• holding that the motion to obtain new counsel was untimely when it was made the day before trial
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to substitute counsel raised by codefendants one day before the trial was set to begin

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).