United States v. Walter F. Curran

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Rule 32 does not apply to letters sent to the court, and therefore relying on the court’s supervisory powers to require disclosure to the defendant
• recognizing that Rule 32 does not apply to letters sent to the court, and therefore relying on the court's supervisory powers to require disclosure to the defendant
• holding that a defendant should be given advance warning of, and an opportunity to challenge, information used to influence severity of sentence
• recognizing that Rule 32 “embodies the congressional intent to assure a defendant’s due process rights in the sentencing process”
• recognizing that Rule 32 “embodies the congressional intent to assure a defendant’s due process rights in the sentencing process”
• holding that henceforth, where a sentencing court relies on extra-record factual information at sentencing, it “should disclose to the defendant as much as was relied upon, in a timely manner, so as to afford the defendant a fair opportunity to examine and challenge it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).