United States v. Richard Higgins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a challenge alleging that a written judgment conflicts with the trial court’s oral sentencing pronouncement is encompassed by a sentence appeal waiver
• holding that where a defendant “puts forth no argument that” a sentence is “in excess of the statutory maximum, his conditions-of-[supervised release] arguments fall within the appeal waiver”
• observing that oral and written sentences “may differ in content if they do not conflict but one merely addresses ambiguities in the other”
• con- cluding that a similar exception did not apply because the defend- ant “put[] forth no argument” that the conditions “violate[d] the[] statutory limitations in a way that constitute[d] a punishment in excess of the statutory maximum”
• con- cluding that a similar exception did not apply because the defend- ant “put[] forth no argument” that the conditions “violate[d] the[] statutory limitations in a way that constitute[d] a punishment in excess of the statutory maximum”
• “We will, however, enforce a waiver on appeal regardless of whether the district court addressed it directly where the record indicates the defendant has read and understood his plea agreement and has raised no questions about the waiver.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).