United States v. Duckro

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, even where the district court departed downward significantly from the originally (incorrectly) calculated range, one could not presume that the court would have departed less under a correct and lower Guidelines range
• explaining that a defendant who wishes to challenge the factual allegations in the PSR must produce some evidence to call those facts into question
• finding that, because the sentencing court had selected from the low end of the Guidelines range it believed to be correct, \it stands to reason that it might choose an even lower sentence when presented with\ a lower range
• finding that, because the sentencing court had selected from the low end of the Guidelines range it believed to be correct, “it stands to reason that it might choose an even lower sentence when presented with” a lower range
• finding 28 persuaded that the record is clear that the sentence imposed was not a result of the erroneous sentencing Guidelines range. We will remand for the District Court to determine the sentence that should be imposed in light of the correct Guidelines range, considering the 3553(a
• finding 28 persuaded that the record is clear that the sentence imposed was not a result of the erroneous sentencing Guidelines range. We will remand for the District Court to determine the sentence that should be imposed in light of the correct Guidelines range, considering the 3553(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).