United States v. Pentrack (2005)
green
· 44 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 10 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200620162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
United States v. Iley (2019)
However, in assessing whether the district court’s computation is correct “we review legal questions regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo,” and “a district court’s factual findings are reviewed only for clear error, giving due deference to the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 989 (10th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) …
green
United States v. Anderson (2023)
“In applying that standard, we review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, ‘giving due deference to the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts.’” Id. at 1249 (quoting United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 969 (10th Cir. 2005)).
green
United States v. Ansberry (2020)
“In applying that standard, we review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, ‘giving due deference to the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts.’” Id. at 1249 (quoting United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 989 (10th Cir. 2005)). “‘Determination of whether facts satisfy a prescribed standard is a mixed question of fact and law.’” United States v. Patton, 927 F.3d 1087, 1101 (10th Cir. 2019) (alterations omitted) (quoting Campbe…
green
United States v. Finnesy (2020)
Typically, “‘we review legal questions regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo,’ and ‘a district court’s factual findings are reviewed only for clear error, giving due deference to the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts.’” United States v. Iley, 914 F.3d 1274 , 1278–79 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 989 (10th Cir. 2005)).
green
United States v. Rodriguez (2019)
In applying that standard, we review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, “giving due deference to the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 989 (10th Cir. 2005).
green
United States v. Childress (2006)
United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 989 (10th Cir.2005).
green
United States v. Jereb (2018)
See United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986 , 991 n.4 (10th Cir. 2005) (declining to reach the merits of an argument abandoned in the appellant’s reply brief).
declining to reach the merits of an argument abandoned in the appellant’s reply brief
green
United States v. Robert Stochel (2018)
The order in question must instruct the defendant “to take or not to take a specified action.” Id. § 2B1.1(b)(9) cmt. n.8(C); see also United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 990 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that a judicial order must “provide the defendant with adequate notice of the prohibited conduct”).
holding that a judicial order must “provide the defendant with adequate notice of the prohibited conduct”
green
United States v. Robert Stochel (2018)
The order in question must instruct the defendant "to take or not to take a specified action." Id. § 2B1.1(b)(9) cmt. n.8(C); see also United States v. Pentrack , 428 F.3d 986 , 990 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that a judicial order must "provide the defendant with adequate notice of the prohibited conduct").
holding that a judicial order must "provide the defendant with adequate notice of the prohibited conduct"
green
Wyoming Ex Rel. Crank v. United States (2008)
See, e.g., United States v. Pentrack, 428 F.3d 986, 989 (10th Cir.2005). 10 .