United States v. Donald Davenport

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that retroactive application of remedial holding of Booker did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause; defendant was on notice of statutory penalty when he committed ciime
• holding that, because defendant was on notice of the maximum statutory penalty when he committed the crime, retroactive application of Booker did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause
• noting that the failure to provide notice as required by Rule 32(h) would be reviewed for harmlessness
• holding that a sentence more than three times the top of the advisory sentencing range was unreasonable where the factors relied upon by the district court did not justify such a sentence and the court failed to explain how the variance sentence served the § 3553(a) factors
• reversing as unreasonable a sentence of 120 months when the advisory guidelines range was 30 to 37 months

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).