Wiener v. MIB Group, Inc.

Oral argument

• Argued

  24 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that we review a district court’s decision not to reduce a sentence under § '3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion
• holding, in same circumstances, that defendant lacked opportunity contemporaneously to object to district court’s ruling, and that defendant was not required to move for reconsideration to preserve error for appellate review
• remanding for explanation where no proportionality between original sentence at middle of advisory guideline range and amended sentence at very top of amended guideline range
• applying the same standard as initial sentencing decisions (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007))
• remanding because we could not determine how the district court exercised its discretion in choosing not to amend the defendant’s sentence further
• “Our cases applying Clark uniformly have involved proportionality between the initial sentence and the amended sentence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).