Hunter v. United States · ¶63

Next, consider the Court's third example, sentences marred by serious procedural errors. Ante, at 728. That includes not only a sentence chosen by an orangutan, see supra, at 737–738, but others refecting a marked departure from mandatory sentencing procedures. Ante, at 728; see also Gall v. United States, 552 U. S. 38, 49–51 (2007) (outlining sentencing procedures). Appreciating as much, Courts of Appeals have often declined to enforce appeal waivers when a district court breaks from rules requiring it to give reasons for its chosen sentence or address a defendant's non-frivolous arguments for a different one. See, e. g., United States v. Smith, 134 F. 4th 248, 261–263 (CA4 2025); United States v. Woltmann, 610 F. 3d 37, 39–40 (CA2 2010).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.