Search for: "C Booker"
Results 301 - 320
of 334
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2007, 1:18 pm
., William C. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 5:47 am
Each are grade C violations with an advisory guideline range of 8 -14 months' imprisonment. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 9:40 am
., William C. [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 12:29 pm
UPDATE: Based on Figure C in this report, it appears that average sentences after Booker continue to rise, and may have experienced a (statistically significat?) [read post]
6 Mar 2007, 4:10 am
Arnoff and Sue C. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 11:30 am
§ 3553(c). [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 7:54 am
Mar. 1, 2007) (Jacobs, Sack, Oberdorfer) (per curiam): This opinion follows the Rattoballi line of cases, which emphasize the continuing centrality of the Guidelines in sentencing despite Booker. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 7:16 am
Relatedly, after Booker, Congress could have readily returned the guidelines to their mandatory status simply by declaring that guideline fact-finding should conform to Sixth Amendment. [read post]
11 Feb 2007, 2:54 am
§ 3553(a)(2)(C). [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 12:26 am
GoodaleJames C. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 5:12 am
BagleyRobert C. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 7:12 am
Apprendi, Blakely and now Cunningham ... the A,B,C of jury trial rights now includes three cases striking down state sentencing laws giving state judges undue authority to find facts to increase sentences. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 3:47 am
Jan 17, 2007) (available here) (reversing as unreasonable a reduced guideline sentence because of concerns of the impact of 924(c) mandatory enhancement) (discussed by How Appealing here) Ninth Circuit: US v. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 8:24 am
This is an interesting Booker effect case: if the guidelines go down for a guidelines imposed sentence, and resentencing is allowed under 18 USC 3582(c), should the guidelines be treated as mandatory or advisory? [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 9:44 pm
" Here is the abstract:This paper 1) notices that Booker uprooted the statutory basis for the departure concept, suggesting that courts are at liberty to deviate from precedent rooted in the pre-Booker concept; 2) explains why Rule 32(i)(1)(C) as read by Burns v United States requires notice prior to sua sponte non-Guidelines sentences in those jurisdictions that require a distinct legal determination if a non-Guidelines sentence is warranted; and 3) discusses… [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 10:07 am
§ 3582(c). [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 6:24 am
What does allocution have to do with the previous sentence imposed pre-Booker? [read post]
29 Dec 2006, 6:17 am
A&C is informed and usually a quick read. [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 2:07 pm
The court also rejects the idea that Booker "clarified" the guidelines because, it holds that, a reduction under § 3582(c), since the defendant was already denied relief under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Nov 2006, 11:50 am
§ 22.041(c) is not categorically a crime of violence. [read post]
