V.U.B. v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that we review for clear error the district court’s factual findings at sentencing
• explaining that mode of transportation may warrant a § 2L1.1(b)(6) adjustment if based on characteristics such as lack of seatbelts or adequate ventilation
• “ ‘Even though the Guidelines are advisory, they are still the “starting point and the initial benchmark” for the sentencing process.’ ” (quoting United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 415 (9th Cir. 2011
• “[T]he commentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it . . . is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” (quoting United States v. Martin, 796 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2015

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).