stating standard of review and explaining that a court abuses its discretion only if the decision to impose the enhancement is “illogical” or “implausible” based on the facts in the record
How later courts described this case
- stating standard of review and explaining that a court abuses its discretion only if the decision to impose the enhancement is “illogical” or “implausible” based on the facts in the record
- holding that we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s application of the Guidelines to a case’s facts
- emphasizing the distinction between “identifying the correct legal standard on the one hand, and applying that standard to the facts of a given case on the other”
- explaining that district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HURWITZ, Circuit Judge,
with whom FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in part and concurring in the result:
As the court today correctly notes, “[i]n most cases, the standard of review does not affect the outcome.” That is true here. The district court found that the injuries suffered by the victim — “several lacerations ... and a small burn” — warranted imposition of the bodily injury enhancement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Ll.l(b)(7)(A). Whether reviewed de novo or with deference, the district court’s determination was plainly correct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.l(B) (defining bodily injury as any significant injury). I would therefore leave for another day, and in a case where it matters to the outcome, the interesting issue of the appropriate standard of review.