United States v. Mark Anthony Campbell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 6 Case: 19-10900 Date Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 7 of 16 failure to calculate guideline range rendered sentence procedurally unreasonable
• concluding that questions such as “is there anything further?” or “anything else?” do not satisfy Jones
• holding that in a revocation proceeding we must “first determine whether the district court correctly interpreted and applied the appropriate advisory Guidelines range.”
• concluding that an appellant had not waived his sentencing argument where the district court failed to comply with the Jones rule
• holding that the district court failed to elicit fully articulated objections and violated Jones where it asked, post-sentence, “[i]s there anything further?” or “anything else?” and neither party responded with objections
• concluding that Jones error occurred where the court asked if there was “anything further” and “[d]efense counsel requested the court to recommend drug treatment,” because that exchange did not indicate that “defense counsel understood the court to be eliciting objections”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).