United States v. James M. Funk

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a “district court will act unreasonably if it bases the sentence on impermissible factors” but failing to specify whether it ran afoul of the procedural or substantive unreasonableness prong
• vacating 43% downward variance when district court unduly discounted defendant’s criminal history
• “It therefore defies logic to reduce the defendant’s sentence because of the absence of this factor; the properly calculated guidelines range has already taken into account its absence”
• “[A] district court making sentencing determinations may not implicitly reject Congress’s policy decision to prescribe harsher penalties for career offenders by ignoring or outright rejecting a defendant’s status as a career criminal offender.”
• “[A] district court making sentencing determinations may not implicitly reject Congress’s policy decision to prescribe harsher penalties for career offenders by ignoring or outright rejecting a defendant’s status as a career criminal offender.”
• “If we were to view Funk’s sentence simply as a sentence where ‘the district court independently [chose] to deviate from the advisory guidelines range,’ we would still need to determine whether the district court adequately justified the extent of this deviation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).