United States v. Herrera-Zuniga

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “particularly harsh” upward departure was substantively reasonable based on the defendant’s “significant criminal history, his repeated recidivism, the seriousness of his offenses, [and] the nature and circumstances of his latest offense . . . .”
• permitting a district court to reject the Guidelines range for illegal reentry offenses because it concluded that the sentences applied to such offenses were too low
• affirming 18-month upward variance based on defendant’s “significant criminal history” and “repeated recidivism”
• “We thus see no reason to limit the authority recognized in Kimbrough and confirmed in Spears to the crack-powder cocaine context.”
• “[T]he authority of district courts to reject the Guidelines on policy grounds follows inexorably from the Court’s holding in Booker that the Guidelines are advisory only.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).