Sixth Circuit· 4/9/2014

United States v. Joe Head

Citations

748 F.3d 728
2014 WL 1378192
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6492

How courts have described this case

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

holding that district courts may exercise their discretion “to reject the MDMA-to-marijuana ratio…based on a reasoned policy disagreement”
concluding that a district court’s finding that defendant had told an “ ‘obvious lie’ ” under oath was insufficient to support obstruction enhancement and that factual findings concerning materiality and willfulness were needed
explaining that a defendant “could not have possibly objected to the district court’s explanation of its sentence before the district court actually explained its sentence”
concluding the district court’s analysis showed that it “actually believed” it lacked the authority to vary downwards even though it explicitly stated that it had discretion to do so
finding “witness intimidation” sufficient to uphold the district court’s decision to withhold an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
reversing because the district court failed to make findings on materiality or intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moore, Griffin, Korman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.