United States v. Cordoza-Estrada

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that supplemental letter briefing filed shortly after issuance of Blakely was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal
• accepting a Rule 280 letter malting an argument based on Blakely that could not have been made when the briefs were submitted
• accepting a Rule 28(j) letter making an argument based on Blakely that could not have been made when the briefs were submitted
• noting that though the defendant preserved the Blakely issue with the filing of a supplemental letter brief shortly after the issuance of that opinion, plain error is still the correct review given that no such claims were made in the district court
• noting that though the defendant preserved the Blakely issue with the filing of a supplemental letter brief shortly after the issuance of that opinion, plain error is still the correct review given that no such claims were made in the district court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).