Third Circuit· 4/29/2009

United States v. Lofink

Citations

564 F.3d 232
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9114
2009 WL 1140258

How courts have described this case

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

noting district courts “need not explicitly comment on every factor if the record makes clear the court took the [§ 3553] factors into account in sentencing” (internal quotation marks omitted)
vacating a sentence where the court could not infer from the record whether the district court’s denial of a departure motion was discretionary, in part because “the government ... argued to the District Court that [the defendant] was not eligible for [the] departure”
vacating a sentence where the court could not infer from the record whether the district court’s denial of a departure motion was discretionary, in part because “the government . . . argued to the District Court that [the defendant] was not eligible for [a] departure”
where the defendant formally moved for a downward departure under § 5K2.13 of the Guidelines
“we are not at liberty to review a discretionary denial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rendell, Ambro, Jordan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.