United States v. Ramon Wilberto Abreu-Cabrera

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant who returned illegally to visit his family not entitled to a downward departure
• holding that defendant’s original sentence did not fall within the scope of Rule 35(c) because it was not illegal nor the result of an incorrect or unreasonable application of the guidelines
• holding that defendant's original sentence did not fall within the scope of Rule 35(c) -8- because it was not illegal nor the result of an incorrect or unreasonable application of the guidelines
• holding that since defendant’s 4 “resentencing represented nothing more than a district court’s change of heart as to the appropriateness of the sentence, it was accordingly not a correction authorized by Rule 35(c)”
• chronicling the history of Rule 35 and the limits placed on the scope of its authority
• addressing the issue in the context of a prior version of Rule 35, in which the language contained in current subsection (a) was contained in subsection (c)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).