United States v. Massenburg

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 mere existence of an error cannot satisfy the requirement that [defendant] show that his substantial rights were affected”
• noting when case was a “strong one” the court “can legitimately question what Massen-burg would have to gain by going to trial”
• noting when case was a “strong one” the court “can legitimately question what [petitioner] would have to gain by going to trial”
• discussing the “plain error standard of review” and the “harmless error standard of review”
• declining to notice plain error in a case in which the “[defendant] never clearly and unmistakably asserted that had he been correctly informed of the sentence he faced, he would, in fact, have pled not guilty and gone to trial” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Under these circumstances, we think we can legitimately question what [the defendant] would have to gain by going to trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).