United States v. Michael Spano, Sr., Emil Schullo, and Betty Loren-Maltese

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that procedural errors were harmless when district court record and court’s explanation otherwise thoroughly supported sentence
• holding that the district court’s error was harmless because “[t]he judge has made abundantly and persuasively clear why he thinks a guidelines sentence made without consideration of [the erroneous finding]” was appropriate
• finding “enough merit” in the argument that “the harsher the conditions the shorter the sentence should be” for “a sentencing judge to take it into account”
• stating that “[e]ven though the guidelines are no longer mandatory, the judge must compute the guidelines range [using U.S.S.G. 5G1.2(d)]. He is not bound to sentence within it, but if he does the sentence is presumed by us (that is, by the appellate court) to be reasonable”
• holding sentencing error to be harmless
• noting obsolescence of “departures” post-Booker

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).