United States v. Martinez-Barragan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the record did not indicate “that the district court misunderstood its obligation to impose the least severe sentence”
• acknowledging that because the Guidelines are only advisory, no mandatory requirements exist as to when a district court may sentence a defendant to an “above- or below-Guidelines sentence”
• holding the guideline sentence was substantively reasonable despite defendant’s argument that his criminal history was overstated and that he only entered the United States to provide for his children
• stating that a district court can impose a 9 Appellate Case: 23-2132 Document: 010111094384 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 10 variance even when the circumstances fall “within the heartland of similar cases”
• noting that when a district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence, “[t]he court must provide only a general statement of its reasons and need not explicitly ... respond to every argument for leniency that it rejects in arriving at a reasonable sentence” (emphasis added
• explaining a sentence should be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of criminal punishment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).