United States v. Joseph Newbold

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an erroneous sentence above the statutory maximum is cognizable on initial § 2255 review
• explaining that “there are serious, constitutional, separation-of-powers concerns that attach to sentences above the statutory maximum penalty authorized by Congress” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that “there are serious, constitutional, separation-of-powers concerns that attach to sentences above the statutory maximum penalty authorized by Congress” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• observing that possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance was a Class H felony
• finding- an “erroneously-imposed sentencing floor ... problematic on its own” because “it create[s] the mistaken impression that the district court ha[s] no discretion to vary downward from the low end of [the Guidelines] range”
• finding an “erroneously-imposed sentencing floor . . . problematic on its own” because “it create[s] the mistaken impression that the district court ha[s] no discretion to vary downward from the low end of [the Guidelines] range”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).