United States v. Samuel Scroggins

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not err in denying a reduction under § 3E1.1 when the defendant continued to use cocaine after his arrest for stealing from postal stamp vending machines
• holding continued use of cocaine supports denying acceptance of responsibility
• explaining the development of the common-law purposes of punishment from the time of the Amer- ican Revolution to the 1800s
• district court’s findings of fact with respect to sentencing guideline calculations are subject to “clearly erroneous” standard of review
• “[A]ppellant by no means received a sentence that he could not have anticipated—to the contrary, appellant could have predicted that the court would so act” under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• \[A] defendant's continued use of narcotics does not preclude an adjustment for acceptance of responsi- bility . . . .\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).