United States v. Michael Anthony Adams

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 legitimacy of the sentencing process [is] called into question when [the] right of allocution [is] violated” and that an exercise of discretion is warranted
• holding that “the legitimacy of the sentencing process [is] called into question when [the] right of allocution [is] violated” and that an exercise of discre- tion is warranted
• holding that failing to personally address the defendant before sentencing was plain error
• holding that failing to personally address the defendant before sentencing was plain error
• noting that “a panel may reevaluate a precedent in light of intervening authority and amendments to statutes and regulations”
• noting that “a panel may reevaluate a precedent in light of intervening authority and amendments to statutes and regulations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).