United States v. Ming Liou

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \the border between factors properly considered `substantive' and those properly considered `procedural' is blurry if not porous\
• noting that “the border between factors properly considered ‘substantive’ and those properly considered ‘procedural’ is blurry if not porous”
• noting that, post-Booker, a district court’s imposition of sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness
• noting that this Court has long held that “we will vacate a sentence if the context and the record do not make clear the court’s reasoning”
• reasoning that “the district court offered clear reasons for its sentence” and that “the district court did acknowledge [defendant’s] family and business circumstances at the sentencing hearing”
• noting that “a district court’s failure to Nos. 06-3882/4206 United States v. Martinez Page 34 address each argument [of the defendant] head-on will not lead to automatic vacatur” (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).