United States v. Richard Dehart Charlesworth

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the information in the PSR was sufficient because defendant never offered any evidence to contradict the PSR, arguing instead “that the government failed to sustain its burden of proof’
• concluding the information in the PSR was suffi- cient because defendant never offered any evidence to contra- dict the PSR, arguing instead “that the government failed to sustain its burden of proof”
• “Thus, once the government has established the base offense level, the burden falls on the party seeking to alter this level to prove the necessary facts.”
• “[T]he defendant has a due process right to be sentenced on the basis of reliable information.”
• “Charlesworth 24 did not contest any of the information in the PSR; therefore, there was no need for the court to make any findings.”
• “The use of the word ‘committed’ in § 2P1.1(b)(3) suggests that neither a conviction for a felony nor even an indictment is required.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).