United States v. Polihonki

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because the defendant and defense counsel each referenced Polihonki’s employment status during revocation hearing, the district court considered his mitigation argument despite not expressly stating so
• noting that the district court provided adequate reasoning, supporting the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
• finding a sentence to be procedurally reasonable where the district court discussed both the relevant Section 3553(a
• affirming sentence of thirteen months incarceration following revocation of supervised release for two positive tests for alcohol, where conditions prohibited defendant “from any use of alcohol”
• rejecting substantive reasonableness challenge to higher sentence imposed following second revocation of supervised release
• “This court has made it clear that a district court need not explain its reasons for rejecting each argument made by a defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).