United States v. Quan Chau

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 “use of extra-verdict enhancements in an advisory guidelines system is not unconstitutional.” (quotation omitted)
• holding that there cannot be plain error “[i]n the absence of any controlling precedent supporting the proposition that there was error”
• holding that an error is not plain “if it is not clear under current law”
• holding that, where the defendant had pled guilty and the district court considered the guideline range to be advisory, the court appropriately found facts outside those included in the indictment
• holding that the defendant’s hearsay objections did not preserve the Confrontation Clause issue
• stating that Booker rejected the idea that, in an advisory system, the Sixth Amendment “prohibits the sentencing court from making factual determinations that go beyond a defendant’s admissions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).