United States v. Dan Petri

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting request for minor-role reduction where objection was raised but defendant “did not allege a factual inaccuracy in the presentence report”
• “A specific factual objection addresses a factual inaccuracy; it does not merely object to recommendations, opinions, or conclusions.”
• “Rule 32 did not require the district court to expressly address those assertions that were not factual objections to the presentence report when it pronounced [defendant’s] sentence.”
• “Because the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, once effective, have the force and effect of law, we apply traditional tools of statutory construction to interpret them.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “Rule 32(i)(3)(B) pertains only to unresolved objections to the presentence report.” (emphasis added)
• district court need not “detail its evaluation of every assertion made to support [defendant’s] argument during sentencing” as long as it makes clear that the parties’ arguments have been heard and a reasoned decision made

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).