United States v. Patrick D. Quinlan, Sr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the government satisfied the requirements of Rule 32(h) because its sentencing memorandum recommended an above- guidelines sentence
• holding that notice was reasonable although the district court departed upward without informing the defendant in advance because the government had put the defendant and the court on notice that it was recommending an above-the-Guidelines sentence
• summarily dismissing Quinlan’s argument based on Rule 32(h) because the government had repeatedly “put Quinlan and the court on notice that it was recommending a sentence of 120 months”
• defendant had “sophisticated and successful business[]” background

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).