United States v. Jules

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “each party must be given notice of and an opportunity to contest new information relied on by the district court in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding”
• holding that the district court violated the defendant’s due process rights by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion based on a probation officer’s memorandum that outlined the defendant’s post-conviction conduct but was not docketed or given to either party
• recognizing, in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, “the due process right not be sentenced on the basis of invalid premises or inaccurate information” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• discussing the “due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of invalid premises or inaccurate information”
• “[A]lthough a hearing is a permissible vehicle for contesting any new information, the district court may instead allow the parties to contest new information in writing.”
• “[E]ach party must be given notice of and an opportunity to con- test new information relied on by the district court in a [section] 3582(c)(2) proceeding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).