United States v. Rudolph A. McClellan

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the “court is presumed to have considered the recommended sentencing range set forth in the policy statements”
• finding that the “court is presumed to have considered the recommended sentencing range set forth in the policy statements”
• noting that the court of appeals prefers that a district court make express reference to the recommended sentencing range
• stating that the court need not follow a “ritualistic incantation” of the relevant factors, “[n]or is there a requirement that a district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered”
• stating that the court need not follow a “ritualistic incantation” of the relevant factors, “[n]or is there a requirement that a district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered”
• noting no “requirement that a district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).