United States v. Del Valle-Rodriguez

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 15-month variance over the 105-month top end of the GSR is modest and reasonable
• holding that \a sentencing court's obligation to explain a variance requires the court to offer a plausible and coherent rationale -- but it does not require the court to be precise to the point of pedantry\
• explaining that \[t]he procedural dimension includes errors such as . . . neglecting to explain the rationale for a variant sentence adequately\
• stating that “upward variance may be justified by ... a finding that the defendant’s criminal history score underre-presents the gravity of his past conduct ... or by a finding that the GSR underestimates the likelihood of recidivism”
• determining that the district court articulated an adequate rationale where it expounded upon its assessment of the risk of future criminal activity, the need to protect the public, and the defendant's history of failing to comply with conditions
• explaining that Tapia error occurs where \a sentencing court's reference to rehabilitative needs was causally related to the length of the sentence\ rather than being \merely one of a mix of sentencing consequences and opportunities\ considered by the court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).