United States v. Harold Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• dealing with district court's alleged failure to consider policy statements of Sentencing Guidelines when revoking supervised release
• determining that district court’s failure to “mention the . . . policy statement [range was] not dispositive” when the correct range was “cited repeatedly in the probation officer’s worksheet and the oral and written arguments of [defendant’s] counsel”
• cataloguing the circuit courts holding that the Chapter 7 policy statements are not binding in supervised release revocation sentences
• sentencing court need not engage in a \ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consider- ation of a legal issue\
• stating “[a] court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal issue”
• finding a Chapter 7 policy statement non-binding because there are no actual guidelines in Chapter 7 for it to interpret

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).