United States v. Michael L. Meeker

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding a district court’s reliance on undisclosed evidence on plain-error review, because undisclosed evidence was cumulative of evidence in the record
• “[I]f cumulative evidence otherwise exists in the record, then the defendant is already on notice and less preparation time is necessary.”
• “where a defendant has had an opportunity to review the evidence relied upon by the district court, an explanation of how the defendant was prejudiced is required”
• in challenging a sentence for lack of Rule 32(h) notice, a defendant must demonstrate on appeal what advantage he would have gained from receiving prehearing notice, ie., that factual assertions were false or could have been effectively rebutted
• finding plain error where district court issued upward departure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).