The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Rundle, 935 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1991):
We review de novo the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.1990). Rundle argues that the district court incorrectly applied the aggravated assault section of the guidelines. In his view, the evidence was insufficient to show that he intended to harm his wife, a necessary element of aggravated assault as defined by the guidelines.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.