United States v. Wesley Foote

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that we have “upheld significant variances by district courts that were supported by their reliance on the § 3553(a) factors”
• recognizing that we have “upheld significant variances by district courts that were supported by their reliance on the § 3553(a) factors”
• holding that a Career Offender designation that was later nullified was not a fundamental defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice such that relief under § 2255 was warranted
• holding that “sentencing a defendant pursuant to advisory Guidelines based on a career offender status that is later invalidated” does not raise a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
• holding that a career offender enhancement in violation of Simmons that was imposed under the advisory guidelines, and did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence, did not rise to the level of a fundamental defect
• recognizing a sentence issued in excess of the maximum authorized by law as a fundamental defect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).