Search for: "C Booker"
Results 241 - 260
of 334
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2008, 6:28 am
Though it makes no mention of sentencing jurisprudence, this new piece up on SSRN develops a theory that may help explain how and why the Apprendi-Blakely-Booker line of cases has produced such a doctrinal mess. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 8:55 am
§ 3582(c). [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
Vilches-Navarrete, No. 06-1942 Conviction and sentence for cocaine possession in violation of Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ("MDLEA") and conspiracy to distribute cocaine is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the MDLEA is unconstitutional; 2) the district court lacked jurisdiction; 3) the district court erroneously refused to suppress evidence; 4) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction; and 5) his sentence was unreasonable under Booker; and 6)… [read post]
21 Mar 2008, 6:03 am
Booker, 2008 U.S. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 10:17 am
§ 3553(c), which requires a sentencing judge to state "in open court" the reasons for imposing a particular sentence. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:27 pm
" The court went on to hold that "[s]ince section 3582(c)(2)'s requirement that a district court consider whether its reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission's Policy Statement is a limitation on a district court's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court's recent Sixth Amendment sentencing jurisprudence, including Booker, is not applicable and the district court remains limited by the Policy Statement. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 6:25 am
That fundamentally misunderstands the limits of Booker. [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 11:13 am
After the Jury Acquits: Resolving the Post-Booker Acquitted Conduct Sentencing Dilemma. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 12:53 pm
§ 841(c)(2). [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Schlesinger, No. 05-3021 Conviction on a variety of arson and fraud charges is affirmed over claim that 28 U.S.C. section 2461(c)(2005) did not authorize the criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of his mail and wire fraud offenses. [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 1:50 pm
Espinoza, No. 05-0711 Sentence based on conviction for cocaine-related crimes is affirmed as the district court's reliance on the record before it, including the Presentence Investigation Report, constitutes an adequate basis for the sentence imposed, and the court's failure to satisfy the "open court" requirement of 18 U.S.C. section 3553(c) was not plain error. [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 4:47 pm
OpinionShort Title/District 08a0004p.06 Staunch v. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 7:09 am
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). [read post]
5 Jan 2008, 5:12 am
See Booker v. [read post]
22 Dec 2007, 7:31 am
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 7:22 pm
OpinionShort Title/District 07a0471p.06 Van Gorder v. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 7:38 am
C. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 2:22 am
United States, 06-6330 (per Booker, crack guidelines are advisory only; judge may consider crack/powder disparity in sentencing below the guidelines).United States v. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 5:58 pm
The increased discretion granted to judges by the Booker decision only amplifies the importance of articulating the reasons for a particular sentence and requires sentencing judges' compliance with 3553(c)'s requirements. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 8:01 am
Held: "[W]e hold that we do not have jurisdiction to review a sentence that was imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and was not contingent on the guidelines, where the defendant claims only that there was some error in the district court's calculation of the guidelines or application of Booker. [read post]
