United States v. Cordery

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the likelihood of a sentence that was five months or ten percent longer than it should have been satisfied the fourth element of plain error review
• holding that a Tapia error affected the defendant’s substantial rights because the district court’s emphasis on “RDAP eligibility suggests a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been lower without this consideration”
• noting that the district court justified a prison sentence based in part on the defendant’s ability to complete drug and mental health rehabilitation programs
• finding plain Tapia error even when the district court had imposed a sentence “based on several of the sentencing factors” that were permissible
• adopting the “blanket rule” that plain error is established at the time of appeal, regardless of whether the error was “plain or obvious at the time of sentencing” or trial
• applying the plain-error standard where the defendant failed to object to a within-guidelines sentence based on the defendant's need for drug treatment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).