United States v. Walking Eagle

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in considering whether “a defendant may commit other crimes,” a court may conclude that prior “leniency has not been effective”
• holding that even though the district court did not explicitly consider intermediate criminal history categories, it adequately explained an upward departure based on the defendant’s underrepresented criminal history and his likelihood of re-offending
• holding a district court's failure to specifically mention each intermediate criminal history category was not dispositive where its findings were adequate to explain the departure
• holding a district court’s failure to specifically mention each intermediate criminal history category was not dispositive where its findings were adequate to explain the departure
• reviewing claim that district court failed to explain sentencing decision for plain error when not objected to below
• “We do not require a district court to provide a mechanical recitation of the § 3553(a) factors when determining a sentence.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).