United States v. Matthew Eugene Dupas

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 application of Booker’s remedial holding to sentencing determinations on direct review does not violate retroactivity due process concerns
• concluding that if it was error to impose the condition, that error was not plain
• holding that retroactive application of post-Booker remedial scheme does not violate ex post facto principles and that delegating authority to probation officer to assess drug treatment costs is not plain error
• noting Rearden’s general rule that “an explicit statement of reasons is not abso- lutely required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)”
• district court did not plainly err in delegating decision to the probation officer where it was not clear under current law that the decision could not be delegated
• “The Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 9, by its terms, applies only to changes in the law resulting from legislative or executive action . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).