United States v. Rodriguez-Delma

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an “objection] to the conclusion in the PSR is not sufficient to imply that a controverted matter exists”
• noting that where the defendant only attacks a district court’s application of the Guidelines to the historical facts, the fact-finding obligation is not triggered
• holding defendant’s objection that he was not an organizer or leader of the criminal activity, which did not challenge the historical facts included in the PSR, did not trigger district court’s fact-finding obligation under Rule 32(i)(3)(B)
• holding defendant's objection that he was not an organizer or leader of the criminal activity, which did not challenge the historical facts included in the PSR, did not trigger district court's fact-finding obligation under Rule 32(i)(3)(B)
• district court’s fact-finding obligation was not triggered by a sentence-enhancement objection that did not contest the facts supporting the enhancement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).