United States v. Paul Musgrave

How courts have described this case

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

• holding collateral consequences of a defendant’s conviction may not be considered in determining sentence that reflects seriousness of offense, promotes respect for rule of law, and provides just punishment
• cautioning district courts not to rely on factors that “would tend to support shorter sentences in cases with defendants from privileged backgrounds” (citation omitted)
• holding it was impermissible for a court in USCA11 Case: 18-11602 Date Filed: 03/07/2022 Page: 70 of 96 70 Opinion of the Court 18-11602 sentencing a defendant for bank fraud to consider collateral con- sequences such as “the likely loss of his CPA license”
• “Consideration of general deterrence is particularly important where the district court varies substantially from the Guidelines.”
• “Consideration of general deterrence is particularly important where the district court varies substantially from the Guidelines.”
• “Because economic and fraud-based crimes are more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, these crimes are prime candidates for general deterrence.” (quoting Peppel, 707 F.3d at 637 )

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).