United States v. Meyer

3 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Roy

    88 F.4th 525 (4th Cir. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    That said, a district court may reference information from outside the record at sentencing so long as the court does not rely on such extrinsic information in its sentencing determination. See United States v. Thompson, 864 F.3d 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2017); United States v. Meyer, 790 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Lisenbery, 866 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Indeed, the Guidelines state that, at sentencing, a "court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy." U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a).

  2. United States v. Kessler

    No. 21-3784 (8th Cir. Apr. 25, 2022)

    Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision, as it discussed multiple 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and responded to Kessler's sentencing arguments. See United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1029-30 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Meyer, 790 F.3d 781, 784 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Wood, 587 F.3d 882, 883-84 (8th Cir. 2009). We also conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as the court properly considered relevant factors and did not clearly err in weighing the appropriate factors.

  3. United States v. Smith

    No. 17-2620 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2018)

    The district court did not err, let alone plainly err, in discussing (but not relying on) this research at sentencing. See United States v. Meyer, 790 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing Lovelace and holding there was no plain error where the court mentioned extra-record information but the "record does not show that the district court relied on extra-record information to select an appropriate sentence"); United States v. Lisenberry, 866 F.3d 934, 936-37 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding no abuse of discretion where the court discussed, but "did not consider," facts outside the record). Smith argues his within-guidelines 90-month sentence (guidelines range of 78 to 97 months) is substantively unreasonable.