United States v. Karl Cunningham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court must address a criminal defendant’s “principal” arguments in mitigation un- less such arguments are “so weak as not to merit discussion”
• holding that a district court must address a criminal defendant’s “principal” arguments in mitigation un- less such arguments are “so weak as not to merit discussion”
• noting that although it would have been desirable for defense counsel to call court’s attention to its failure to explain discretionary ruling, the Rules did not require counsel to do so
• noting that although it would have been desirable for defense counsel to call court's attention to its failure to explain discretionary ruling, the Rules did not require counsel to do so
• explaining that a sentencing court must address all of a defendant’s principal arguments that are “not so weak as not to merit discussion”
• noting that although it would have been desirable for defense counsel to call court’s attention to its failure to explain discretionary ruling, the Rules did not require counsel to do so

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).