Search for: "Booker v. Booker"
Results 621 - 640
of 1,434
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2009, 3:29 am
Since Oregon v. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 11:37 am
In United States v. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 9:29 am
U.S. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2009, 9:45 am
Near the end of US v. [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 11:48 am
Here is the abstract: In Kimbrough v. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 9:36 am
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 240 (2005), the Supreme Court correctly characterized United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2009, 8:01 am
(quoting United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 4:12 am
Booker [opinion], which made the USSC's guidelines advisory rather [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 11:00 am
In a narrow little opinion today in US v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 8:48 am
""United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 12:55 am
Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write: In Continental Casualty Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 11:13 am
But we do it in the judiciary all the time.For example, ever since the Supreme Court in Booker held that the sentencing guidelines were advisory, the Ninth Circuit has conducted what we call "limited Ameline" remands, in which the district court is basically asked whether -- for those cases that were on appeal when Booker was decided -- it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the guidelines were advisory. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 3:59 pm
Booker. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 7:23 am
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 7:41 pm
§ 3553(e); and (E) a study and report on the appellate standard of review applicable to post-Booker federal sentencing decisions. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 9:32 am
The more out-of-range sentences that judges impose after Booker, the more disparity there will be. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:24 pm
In United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 1:59 pm
Brown v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 10:49 am
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 apply with equal force to sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 9:00 am
In Booker v. [read post]
