United States v. Vallar

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 enhancement was warranted for a mid-level figure in a drug conspiracy who took part in the planning of the offense, was entrusted with substantial sums of money, and oversaw the receipt of drugs by others in the conspiracy
• concluding that the enhancement was warranted for a mid‐level figure in a drug conspiracy who took part in the planning of the offense, was entrusted with substantial sums of money, and oversaw the receipt of drugs by others in the conspiracy
• concluding that the enhancement was warranted for a mid‐level figure in a drug conspiracy who took part in the planning of the offense, was entrusted with substantial sums of money, and oversaw the receipt of drugs by others in the conspiracy
• stating that within-Guidelines sen- tences “will almost never be unreasonable.”
• finding no clear error in conclusion that defendant willfully testified falsely where district court weighed defendant’s testimony against that of the government agents and concluded defendant lacked credibility
• finding no clear error in conclusion that defendant willfully testified falsely where district court weighed defendant’s testimony against that of the government agents and concluded defendant lacked credibility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).