Skip to main content
Sixth Circuit· 3/30/2009

United States v. Carson

Citations

  • 560 F.3d 566
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6896
  • 2009 WL 804169

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding a sufficient nexus where the defendant lied to a grand jury, “[a]ssuming arguendo that the ‘nexus requirement’ applies”
  • upholding conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) for a defendant who made false statements to a grand jury
  • confusingly identifying \failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors\ as a basis for finding a sentence \procedurally unreasonable\ and \fail[ing] to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors\ as a basis for finding a sentence \substantively unreasonable\
  • classifying as a substantive reasonableness challenge the contention that defendant’s “sentence resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity and the district court failed to give appropriate weight to this disparity”
  • assessing the substantial rights issue by considering the prejudicial nature of the comments, how extensive they were, whether the comments were deliberately made, and the nature of the evidence against the defendant
  • identifying “failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors” as a basis for finding a sentence “procedurally unreasonable” and “fail[ing] to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors” as a basis for finding a sentence “substantively unreasonable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Guy, Suhrheinrich, Gibbons

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

67 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

57 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.