United States v. John Dowell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that application of § 4B1.5(b)(1), together with § 2G2.2(b)(5), was not impermissible double counting because “§ 4B1.5(b)(1
• holding that the child pornography guidelines fully accounted for age-related considerations and thus age and vulnerable-victim enhancements both could not be applied
• holding that Guidelines error was harmless because it did not impact applicable Guidelines range
• noting that the enhancement “is located in Chapter Four of the Guidelines under the provisions covering ‘Career Offenders and Criminal Livelihood’”
• concluding Guidelines error was harmless because it did not increase defendant’s Guidelines range
• “Sentencing error is harmless if the resulting sentence is not longer than that to which the defendant would otherwise be subject.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).