United States v. Gomez-Herrera

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence where it considered but rejected, inter alia, defendant’s argument that he illegally entered the United States to visit his ailing father
• upholding presumption despite argument that the relevant Guideline overstated the seriousness of the offense and that the motive for returning justified a below-guideline sentence
• finding various arguments for a non-guidelines sentence presented no reason to disturb the presumption of reasonableness
• upholding the presumption of reasonableness of a within-Guideline sentence where the defendant argued that the Guideline overstated the seriousness of his offense and his motive for returning to the United States justified a sentence below the Guideline range
• After Kimbrough, “[sentencing courts are still constrained by Congressional policies, for example the mandatory minimum sentences contained in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.”
• “A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling rests on an erroneous view of the law.” (citing Cooter, 496 U.S. at 405)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).