United States v. Marcos Umberto Ministro-Tapia, A/K/A Captain Martin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that particularly clear showing is required to establish that sentence at low end of Guidelines is invalid under parsimony clause
• “[A]bsent record proof showing otherwise, we assume the district court’s awareness of and compliance with this statutory sentencing obligation.”
• “Plainly, if a district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences 18 equally served the statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the 7 1 parsimony clause, impose the higher.”
• “Plainly, if a 8 district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the 9 statutory purpose of § 3553, it could not, consistent with the parsimony clause, 10 impose the higher.”
• “[I]f a district court 10 were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally served the 11 statutory purposes of [section] 3553, it could not, consistent with the 12 parsimony clause, impose the higher.”
• “[I]f a 4 district court were explicitly to conclude that two sentences equally 5 served the statutory purposes of [section] 3553, it could not, 6 consistent with the parsimony clause, impose the higher.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).