Tenth Circuit· 3/20/2020

United States v. Finnesy

Citations

953 F.3d 675

How courts have described this case

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

concluding a defendant could not establish that an alleged error was plain, in part because it was not “clear or obvious” from the record
holding general request for a concurrent sentence was insufficient to preserve for appeal argument that district court should have applied a specific guideline provision that he had never before mentioned
noting we are “not bound by a prior panel’s dicta” (quoting Bates v. Dep’t of Corr., 81 F.3d 1008, 1011 (10th Cir. 1996))
declining to find plain error where the record did not make the alleged mistake “clear or obvious”
finding no preservation where defense counsel merely stated “that procedurally . . . the sentence is . . . unreasonable” (first omission in original
applying plain error review because defendant’s “general request” or objection was insufficient and defendant “directed the district court toward[s] an alleged error” different from the one “he presents on appeal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

65 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.