United States v. Miguel Angel Jarrillo-Luna

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court adequately explained defendant’s low-end Guidelines sentence by stating that it “look[ed] ‘very carefully at the circumstances of this man and his offense’ and then explaining what it considered ‘the two things that are most compelling’ from [the defendant’s] past”
• holding that district court adequately explained defendant’s low-end Guidelines sentence by stating that it “look[ed] ‘very carefully at the circumstances of this man and his offense’ and then explaining what it considered ‘the two things that are most compelling’ from [the defendant’s] past”
• rejecting defendant’s contention that “his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain why it rejected his arguments that he should be sentenced below the Guideline range”
• rejecting the 13 defendant’s argument that “a district court must address each and every argument for leniency that it rejects in arriving at a reasonable sentence”
• “To affirm, we must simply be satisfied that the chosen sentence, standing alone, is reasonable.”
• “To affirm, we must simply be satisfied that the chosen sentence, standing alone, -9- is reasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).