United States v. Wagner-Dano

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that for an error to be “plain,” it “must be so obvious that the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in detecting it” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• observing that for an error to be “plain,” it “must be so obvious that the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in detecting it” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• adopting plain error review of Rule 32(i)(3)(B) claim where defendant failed to press factual objections not resolved by district court in adopting PSR
• noting defendant’s obligation to object if he thinks district court has not addressed factual issue material to sentencing
• noting defendant’s obligation to object if he thinks district court has not addressed factual issue material to sentencing
• finding a Rule 32(i)(3)(B) error unpreserved when the defendant objected to the PSR but raised no objection at the sentencing hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).