United States v. Jack Coppenger, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• applying plain error standard where defendant did not object to district court’s reliance on information in undisclosed, inaccessible presentence reports to impose upward variance
• vacating sentence where district court considered a novel theory that was “neither signaled in the presentence report nor otherwise reasonably foreseeable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).