Search for: "State v. Booker"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,046
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2008, 1:48 am
" United States v. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 1:01 pm
" United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 6:25 am
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. [read post]
16 Mar 2007, 8:56 am
At the time he was sentenced, the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 10:07 am
Jan 11, 2007) (available here), resolved an interesting little issue concerning Booker's reach:In this appeal, we consider whether United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2007, 9:14 am
He was sentenced to 37 months' incarceration under the regime announced in United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 11:13 am
United States and Gall v. [read post]
8 Dec 2006, 10:54 am
" United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 10:24 am
SENTENCINGUnited States v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 4:11 am
For instance, the Supreme Court fundamentally restructured federal sentencing law through its 2005 decision in United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 12:55 pm
In United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2005, 2:48 am
The ruling follows the recent US Supreme Court holding in US v. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:51 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2007, 6:30 am
Johnson, JAGC, USN's article in the Journal of Military and Veteran Law in which he argues that the manner in which the Navy counsels Sailors and Marines falls short of the requirements of United States v. [read post]
30 Aug 2013, 1:35 pm
The case is United State v. [read post]
17 Aug 2006, 10:58 am
Booker. [read post]
7 Apr 2007, 7:08 am
" Here is the abstract:Since the Supreme Court decided United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 6:28 am
" Booker, 543 U.S. at 263; accord United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2005, 10:20 pm
We had previously discussed in this post the First Circuit's opinion in United States v. [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)… [read post]
