United States v. Cynthia Lemon

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the district court’s ambiguous discussion of the defendant’s rehabilitative needs does not constitute plain error
• observing that it is “unlikely that a court has committed Tapia error unless it has considered rehabilitation for the specific purpose of imposing or lengthening a prison sentence”
• reviewing unpreserved Tapia challenge to revocation sentence for plain error because “the issue was not raised as the revocation hearing”
• noting Tapia error not raised at sentencing is reviewed for plain error
• reviewing unpreserved challenge to consideration of impermissible factor for plain error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).