United States v. Frank Chatmon

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a crime with a statutory mandatory minimum of ten years is serious
• explaining that a district court commits clear error if it takes an erroneous view of the controlling legal standard or makes findings without properly taking into account substantial contrary evidence
• noting that a crime with a statutory mandatory minimum of ten years is serious
• finding clear error where the district court failed to “offer some reason why it did not” credit contrary arguments
• finding clear error where the district court failed to “offer some reason why it did not” credit contrary arguments
• reversing medication order where the district court had not addressed the defendant’s arguments regarding less intrusive means “and essentially provided ‘no rationale’ in support of its ruling”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).