United States v. Steven Maxwell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was not clearly erroneous to find that the defendant did not prove standing when he relied entirely on a statement in a warrant affidavit that he had discredited by contending it was recklessly and materially false
• holding that it was not clearly erroneous to find that the defendant did not prove standing when he relied entirely on a statement in a warrant affidavit that he had discredited by contending it was recklessly and materially false
• reviewing the trial court’s factual findings regarding a motion to suppress for clear error when the trial court declined to adopt the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
• applying plain-error review despite declaring the court would “not sustain a procedural challenge ... by a defendant who did not object to the adequacy of the court’s explanation at sentencing”
• “Here, . . . the district court permissibly ‘made its findings with respect to the disputed [facts] based on the evidence at trial, not on the PSR.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Theimer, 557 F.3d 576, 578 (8th Cir. 2009))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).