U.S. v. Carter

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Censke

    534 F. App'x 382 (6th Cir. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming resentence of same length since it was based on a need to protect prior victims and the public given defendant's "history of instability, his numerous threats, and his continued denial of wrongdoing"

    The district court was permitted to and did, in fact, review the post-sentence rehabilitation evidence that Censke submitted with his sentencing memorandum and addendum, i.e., his documented coursework and Dr. Rhinehart's psychological reports from 2010. See Pepper, 131 S. Ct. at 1241-42; United States v. Carter, 444 F. App'x 862, 864-65 (6th Cir. 2011), Counsel conceded at the resentencing that the district court was not obligated to order an updated PSR under either Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) or 18 U.S.C. § 3552(a), but that "it would seem reasonable that the Court would want an updated report."

  2. Censke v. United States

    No. 2:14-cv-179 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 11, 2014)   Cited 1 times
    Denying § 2255 motion

    The district court was permitted to and did, in fact, review the post-sentence rehabilitation evidence that Censke submitted with his sentencing memorandum and addendum, i.e., his documented coursework and Dr. Rhinehart's psychological reports from 2010. See Pepper, 131 S.Ct. at 1241-42; United States v. Carter, 444 Fed.Appx. 862, 864-65 (6th Cir.2011),Counsel conceded at the resentencing that the district court was not obligated to order an updated PSR under either Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c) or 18 U.S.C. § 3552(a), but that "it would seem reasonable that the Court would want an updated report."