United States v. Cereceres-Zavala

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a district court need only provide a “general statement” of reasons for imposing a within-Guidelines sentence
• concluding there was no error where the district court cited to the PSR’s calculations; noting “[c]ontext and the record make clear the district court’s reasoning for rejecting [the defendant’s] arguments”
• finding no plain error when district court cited “the PSR’s calculation method and recitation of the suggested imprisonment range” even though “the sentencing court provided no direct response at all to [the defendant’s] requests for departure”
• “[T]o invoke the 11 Appellate Case: 24-2074 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2025 Page: 12 district court’s Rule 32 fact-finding obligation, the defendant is required to make specific allegations of factual inaccuracy.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).