United States v. Icaza

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that each individual store was not a separate victim of shoplifting where all stores were owned by the same corporation
• holding that each individual store was not a separate victim of shoplifting where all stores were owned by the same corporation
• holding that where a sentencing court pronounces an identical alternative sentence, the error in calculating the Guidelines range is harmless only if it is clear “that the alternative sentence is based on an identifiable, correctly calculated guidelines range”
• holding that a “blanket statement” by a district judge that a sentence was “fair,” where the statement was “intended to cover any and all potential guidelines calculation errors,” was not sufficient to demonstrate harmless error
• remanding where district court’s explanation for alternative sentence was not sufficiently detailed
• “[T]he record must clearly show not only that the district court intended to provide an alternative sentence, but also that the alternative sentence was based on an identifiable, correctly calculated guidelines range.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).