Skip to main content
· 8/4/2006

United States v. Charles E. Winston

Citations

  • 456 F.3d 861
  • 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 19828
  • 2006 WL 2192656

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that a district court “must explain its reasoning for imposing a concurrent or consecutive sentence”
  • affirming the district court’s consecutive sentence because it conducted a similar discussion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Smith, Heaney, Gruender

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.