United States v. Dayven Joseph

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court's failure to recognize its authority to impose concurrent sentences for multiple violations of § 1791 was plain error warranting reversal because the error potentially increased the length of defendant's sentence
• explaining that an error is plain if it is clearly “contrary to the law at the time of appeal” (citation omitted)
• explaining that an error is plain if it is clearly “contrary to the law at the time of appeal” (citation omitted)
• stating that this court “regularly deem[s] the fourth prong of the plain error standard to have been satisfied where, as here, the sentencing court committed a legal error that may have increased the length of a defendant’s sentence”
• affirming “there is little reason not to correct plain sentencing errors when doing so is so simple a task” (quoting United States v. Tapia, 665 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011))
• if error “may have led” to even a one-month deviation in sentencing, the error “affects substantial rights” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).