United States v. Penson

How courts have described this case

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

• finding sentence unreasonable where district court \provided virtually no explanation giving insight into the reasons for the specific sentence given\
• labeling 28 U.S.C. §§ 2106 and 2255 as “the two statutes permitting . . . modification” under § 3582(c)(1)(B)
• labeling 28 U.S.C. §§ 2106 and 2255 as “the two statutes permitting . . . modification” under § 3582(c)(1)(B)
• vacating a sentence where, after mentioning the factors, “the district court never verbalized which of these factors were particularly important to the circumstances of this case or how it selected the sentence in light of these factors”
• discussing the Bostic question and observing that “while defendants do not need to raise the claim of substantive unreasonableness before the district court to preserve the claim for appeal, defendants must do so with respect to claims of procedural unreasonableness”
• rejecting use of Rule 36 where the court inadvertently orally sentenced the defendant to three concurrent terms of 310 months and later corrected it in a written order to two concurrent terms of 240 months and one consecutive term of 70 months

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).