Tenth Circuit· 2/28/2017

United States v. Wireman

Citations

849 F.3d 956
2017 WL 765769
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3591

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 district court’s “concerns” about the defendant’s prior criminal history and the nature of the offense, as well as its invocation of the Guidelines, were sufficient to explain its denial of the defendant’s request for a more lenient sentence
reviewing for plain error because although defendant raised issue in his sentencing memorandum, he failed to object at sentencing
explaining a defendant must “contemporaneously object in the district court to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence” in order “to avoid plain error review on appeal of any alleged procedural flaw”
“[A] within-[G]uideline-range sentence that the district court properly calculated is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness on appeal.” (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)
“[W]hen a district court has varied upwards from the Guidelines, our cases have generally required the district court to specifically address and reject the arguments the defendant made for a more lenient sentence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baldock, McKAY, Tymkovich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.