United States v. Schmitt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “adjusting federal sentences to accord with those imposed for similar crimes in state court would undermine the 8344 UNITED STATES v. RINGGOLD goal of uniformity within the federal system”
• vacating defendant’s sentence where judge stated that “there is a growing attitude, particularly in the Court of Appeals, ... that sentences within the guidelines are presumptively correct”
• vacating sentence where judge’s remarks indicated that he thought his discretion was constrained
• vacating sentence where district judge opined that “‘there is a growing attitude . . . that sentences within the guidelines are presumptively correct’” and that judges could not depart from the guidelines without “‘very, very cogent reasons’”
• vacating sentence where district judge opined that “‘there is a growing attitude . . . that sentences within the guidelines are presumptively correct’” and that judges could not depart from the guidelines without “‘very, very cogent reasons’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).