United States v. Joe Head

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).