United States v. Olfano

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, without a record addressing why counsel failed to ask for a continuance, this Court could not determine whether his representation was prejudicial
• recognizing that sentences “within the Guidelines range are more likely to be reasonable than those that fall outside this range”
• “This Court generally does not review Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal.”
• “This Court generally does not review Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal.”
• “without a record ... the court could not determine whether counsel failed to effectively represent his client. Nor is it clear that Olfano was prejudiced by counsel’s performance”
• “While a listing of factors may not, alone, be sufficient to demonstrate the necessary consideration of relevant factors, the record as a whole does indicate such consideration in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).