green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
17.1 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases ·
“[W]e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not discuss each one individually or did not expressly parse or address every argument relating to those factors that the defendant advanced.”
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Cardona-Manco
e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the 3553(a) factors simply because she did not discuss each one individually or did not expressly parse or address every argument relating to those factors that the defendant advanced.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Grant
reasonableness review does not entail the substitution of our judgment for that of the sentencing judge. rather, the standard is akin to review for abuse of discretion.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Zamudio-Berges
in calibrating our review for reasonableness, we will continue to seek guidance from the considered judgment of the sentencing commission as expressed in the sentencing guidelines and authorized by congress.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gonzales
See United, States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Russo
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 29 (2d Cir.) (“[W]e entertain a strong presumption that the sentencing judge has considered all arguments properly presented to her, unless the record clearly suggests otherwise.”), cer t. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006); see also Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308, 314 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) (“We must assume that the trial judge considered [mitigating] evidence before passing sentence.”); United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 941 (6th Cir.2006) (“There is a presumption in the law that a district cour…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Rosario
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir.2006) (“[I]n the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances.”) cer t. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Guerrero
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Moya
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 34-35 (2d Cir.) (holding that “in the absence of record evidence suggesting the contrary, we entertain a strong presumption that a sentencing judge has taken properly presented arguments into account and considered all the § 3553(a) factors in the course of imposing a sentence”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Miley
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Melia
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Parkes
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir.2006), cert denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Still
See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir.), overruled as to other issues, Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006). “[Ajfter Booker , every sentence that a district court ultimately imposes must reflect its determination of what is reasonable in light of the same § 3553(a) factors, whether that sentence is within or outside the Guidelines range.” United States v. Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d 1109, 1114 (10th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ronald Sutton
Indeed, "[w]hen a district court adequately explains why it imposed a particular sentence ... we do not further require that it exhaustively explain the obverse — why an alternative sentence was not selected — in every instance.” United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 882 , 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006) ("[W]e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not discuss each one individually!.]”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Simmons
(2×)
“When a district court adequately explains why it imposed a particular sentence, especially one within the advisory Guidelines range, we do not further require that it exhaustively explain the obverse — why an alternative sentence was not selected in every instance.” United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929 (6th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006) (“[W]e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not ... address every argument relating to those factors that the defendant a…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Irving
See, e.g., United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 882 , 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Pettie
Jones, 445 F.3d at 871; see also United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006) (“[W]e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not discuss each one individually or did not expressly parse or address every argument relating to those factors that the defendant advanced.”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gaskin
See also United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 192 , 166 L.Ed.2d 143 (2006). (“[W]e will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not discuss each one individually or did not expressly parse or address *518 every argument relating to those factors that the defendant advanced.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jackie BROOKS
v.
AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
v.
AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
No. 06-25.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 2, 2006.
Cited by 58 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (3)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.