United States v. Carlos Saro, United States of America v. Cornelio Cabrera-Baez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to establish prejudice, “the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood that the sentencing court’s obvious errors affected his sentence”
• stating that, to satisfy the plain error standard, the error must have been both “obvious” and also prejudicial
• stating that only general challenges to state statutes do not contravene Rooker-Feldman
• rejecting the adoption of a presentence report that assumed that a defendant was “automatically responsible” for other conspirators’ crimes (emphasis omitted)
• remanding for further findings to support attribution of certain quantities of drugs to appellant
• noting the “natural analogy” between claims of plain error and claims of ineffective assistance and stating that “the Strickland formulation of ‘prejudice’ comes quite close to what we have required in plain-error cases”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).