United States v. David Diehl

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that our review of the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is highly deferential to the sentencing court, which sits in a better position to find facts and consider the § 3553(a) factors
• noting that “review for substantive reasonableness is highly deferential, because the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge their import under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defendant” (internal quotation marks omitted
• affirming a sentence of incarceration 253 percent higher than the upper limit of the Guidelines range
• noting standard for whether a non-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable, and that review is “highly deferential” to sentencing court (citation omitted)
• “[U]sing children to engage in sexually explicit conduct . . . constitutes ‘sexual abuse’ of a child.”
• affirming a 600-month sentence on a Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months in a child pornography case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).