United States v. James Howard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court’s “plain statement” that “this is not a case in which [it] would exercise its discretion” “close[d] the matter”
• holding that the statutory sentencing range of the First Step Act movant, who had been originally sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, was provided by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii
• describing a remand under these circumstances as “an exercise in futility”
• affirming where the district court incorrectly found the defendant ineligible for First Step Act relief but “additionally stated that even if Howard had been eligible for relief . . . , ‘this is not a case in which the Court would exercise its discretion to grant such relief’”
• “The district court was . . . uniquely positioned to consider the many factors necessary in exercising its ultimate discretion.”
• affirming the denial of a sentencing-reduction motion under similar circumstances

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named United States v. James Howard

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• United States v. James Howard
  Eleventh Circuit· 1988-09-22· cited 14×
• United States v. James Howard
  Eighth Circuit· 2014-06-11· cited 5×
• United States v. James Howard
  Fifth Circuit· 1971-12-08· cited 1×
• United States v. James Howard
  Eighth Circuit· 2008-07-11