United States v. Phillip Crockett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that factual findings generally are required, but the error in that case was harmless because the defendant’s actual sentence would have been no different without the challenged unconvicted conduct
• stating that testimony of admitted drug user not unreliable because drug use is factor which.can be weighed in determining credibility
• noting that the relevant conduct guideline “should not be applied to offenses that are of the same kind, but not encompassed in the same course of conduct or plan as the convicted offenses” (quotations omitted)
• mis‐ taken calculation of drug quantity “harmless” because correct quantity would result in same base offense level
• “The mere fact that the defendant has engaged in other drug transactions is not sufficient to justify treating those transactions as ‘relevant conduct’ for sentencing purposes.”
• “The determination that an un- charged drug transaction is to provide the basis for an increased sentence of imprisonment is, of course, a very significant matter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).