United States v. Savillon-Matute

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claimed procedural error in Guidelines calculation is harmless if (1) the district court would have imposed the same sentence even if it had decided the Guidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence imposed is reasonable
• noting that the district court had “ ‘absolutely’ ” thought the imposed sentence was appropriate
• noting that harmless error may apply when district court miscalculates advisory sentencing range but we “know[] that the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the guidelines issue the other way” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• affirming 36-month sentence for illegal reentry by assuming Guidelines range of 4 to 10 months and relying on defendant’s earlier assault conviction
• noting doubt about continuing vitality of categorical approach in Sentencing Guidelines for same reasons
• agreeing that “it would make no sense to set aside a reasonable sentence and send the case back to the district court since it has already told us that it would impose exactly the same sentence, a sentence we would be compelled to affirm” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).