United States v. James Bennett, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Tapia error did not affect substantial rights where defendant’s “rehabilitative needs clearly constituted only a minor fragment of the court’s reasoning”
• recognizing that breach of trust is “a perfectly appropriate basis — and, in fact, the principal basis on which the Guidelines encourage courts to ground revocation sentences”
• holding that Tapia applies to sentencing upon revocation of supervised release
• holding that Tapia applies to sentencing upon revocation of supervised release
• instructing that this analysis should follow the directions provided in Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)
• explaining that Tapia prohibits the sentencing court from causally relating “the fact or length of imprisonment” to defendant’s rehabilitative needs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).