United States v. Miguel Navarro-Espinosa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, even if the district court lacked jurisdiction to correct a defendant’s sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c), sec. 3583(e)(2) authorized the court to modify the conditions of a defendant’s supervised release
• not- ing that \the phrase `imposition of sentence' is a term of art that gen- erally refers to the time at which a sentence is orally pronounced\
• \We need not resolve the Rule 35 issue in this case.\
• “We need not resolve the Rule 35 issue in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).