United States v. Visinaiz

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 defendant was barred from attacking the sufficiency of an instruction that he approved after the district court adopted his proffered modifications
• noting that “Blakely and Booker do not apply to restitution” because “[i]n the Tenth Circuit, restitution is not a criminal punishment”
• “When no objection to a jury instruction was made at trial, the adequacy of the instruction is reviewed de novo for plain error.”
• “When no objection to a jury instruction was made at trial, the adequacy of the instruction is reviewed . . . for plain error.”
• “[Bjecause the district court did not consider the guidelines mandatory, there was no Booker error, constitutional or non-constitutional.”
• “In the Tenth Circuit, restitution is not criminal punishment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).