United States v. Edward Ross

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing defendant’s “lengthy criminal history” and “multiple convictions” rendered it unlikely that one additional conviction posed harm sufficient to constitute a collateral consequence
• explaining that in such cases “the sentences are not concurrent, and the ‘concurrent sentence’ doctrine cannot be used to avoid appellate review of each count of conviction”
• holding a defendant’s attempt to vacate a conviction was moot where he claimed that conviction could be used against him in future criminal proceedings because he already had a “lengthy criminal history” and “multiple 4 convictions” in the case at issue
• “Ray establishes that, when a court orders a defendant to pay a special assessment for each of several counts of conviction, the sentences are not concurrent and the ‘concurrent sentence’ doctrine cannot be used to avoid appellate review of each count of conviction.”
• special assessment may not be challenged under § 2255

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).