United States v. James Roberts, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that district court’s factual findings regarding a denial of mitigating role adjustment are reviewed for both clear error while its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo
• noting that district court’s factual findings regarding a denial of mitigating role adjustment are reviewed for both clear error while its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo
• stating that “when a defendant’s base offense level does not reflect the conduct of the larger conspiracy, he should not receive a mitigating role adjustment simply because he was a minor participant in that broader criminal scheme”
• stating that “when a defendant’s base offense level does not reflect the conduct of the larger conspiracy, he should not receive a mitigating role adjustment simply because he was a minor participant in that broader criminal scheme”
• in sentencing drug conspiracy defendant, district court properly looked only to the relevant conduct attributed to defendant for purposes of determining his base offense level in determining whether to apply mitigating role adjustment
• in sentencing drug conspiracy defendant, district court properly looked only to the relevant conduct attributed to defendant for purposes of determining his base offense level in determining whether to apply mitigating role adjustment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).