United States v. Spikes

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 examination for harmlessness is appropriate” where the defendant objected to the significant procedural error
• where it is clear that sentencing court would have imposed same sentence regardless of whether appellant’s argument for lower Guidelines range ultimately prevailed, there can be no reversible error in sentence
• where it is clear that sentencing court would have imposed same sentence regardless of whether appellant’s argument for lower Guidelines range ultimately prevailed, there can be no reversible error in sentence
• where it is clear that sentencing court would have imposed same sentence regardless of whether appellant’s argument for lower Guidelines range ultimately prevailed, there can be no reversible error in sentence
• in reviewing a criminal sentence for reasonableness, we “ ‘first ensur[e] that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly calculating the Guidelines range’ ” (quoting -4- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).