Cluster 173350

A factual finding is clearly erroneous if “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

Davis argues primarily that “an attorney’s assertions are not evidence[,]” citing United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir. 2010).

“The question of whether a sentence is reasonable is determined using the abuse-of- discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

“The question of whether a sentence is reasonable is determined using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

“A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on -7- No. 17-5919, United States v. Farrow impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

“A finding is clearly erroneous where, ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

“A finding is clearly erroneous where, ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Perez, 871 F.2d 45, 48 (6th Cir. 1989)).

A factual finding is clearly erroneous where, “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Perez, 871 F.2d 45, 48 (6th Cir. 1989)). “[T]o the extent that [Defendant] challenges the district court's factual conclusions underlying the aggravated assault, the standard of revie…

“A finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010)).

“We review a sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 608-09 (6th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir.2006)).

Procedural and Substantive Reasonableness “We review a sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 608 (6th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir.2006)).

“We review a sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 608-09 (6th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir.2006)).

Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the district court “selected] a sentence arbitrarily, base[d] the sentence on impermissible factors, fail[ed] to consider relevant sentencing factors, or [gave] an unreasonable amount of weight .to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Brinley, 684 F.3d 629, 636 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir.2010)).

“A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This Court reviews a district court’s sentence for reasonableness, United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 608-09 (6th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir. 2006)), which has both a procedural and substantive component, id. at 609 (quoting United States v. Carter, 510 F.3d 593, 600 (6th Cir.2007)); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Co., Inc. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 853 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Mayberry, 272 F.3d 945, 948-49 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Purchess, 107 F.3d 1261, 1267-68 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir.2010); United States v. Bueno, 443 F.3d 1017, 1022 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Onofre-Segarra, 126 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir.1997).

Co., Inc. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 853 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Mayberry, 272 F.3d 945 , 948–49 (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Purchess, 107 F.3d 1261 , 1267–68 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Bueno, 443 F.3d 1017, 1022 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Onofre‐Segarra, 126 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 1997).

“A finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010).

“The question of whether a sentence is reasonable is determined using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010).

“The question of whether a sentence is reasonable is determined using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (citation omitted).

“The question of whether a sentence is reasonable is determined using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010).

The district court clearly errs when we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The question of whether a sentence is reasonable is determined using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United, States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although we review factual determinations made during sentencing for clear error, United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010), we review legal conclusions regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, United States v. Hover, 293 F.3d 930, 933 (6th Cir.2002).

“A finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Reasonableness is determined “using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (citation omitted).

“The district court ‘must consider all of the relevant § 3553(a) factors and impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a)(2).’ ” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir.2008)). “ ‘A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors,…

“The district court ‘must consider all of the relevant § 3553(a) factors and impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a)(2).’” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Conatser, 514 -8- United States v. Lopez-Galvez No. 10- 3020 F.3d 508 , 520 (6th Cir. 2008)). “‘A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrari…

Reasonableness is determined “using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (citations omitted).

The former includes review for “procedural error in the calculation of the guideline range.” United States v. Bartee, 529 F.3d 357, 358 (6th Cir. 2008). -3- No. 09-5068 United States v. McKenzie Although we review factual determinations made during sentencing for clear error, United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (2010), we review legal conclusions regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, United States v. Hover, 293 F.3d 930, 933 (6th Cir. 2002).

“A finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court ... is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010)).

“A [district court’s] finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“A [district court’s] finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court ... is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“The question of whether a sentence is reasonable is determined using the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (citation omitted).

See United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir. 2010).

See United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010); USSG § 2B5.1, comment, (backg’d).

See United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010); USSG §2B5.1, comment. (backg'd).

See United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir.2010) (“[A] factual finding is reviewed for clear error.”).

See United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir.2010).