Search for: "United States v. Booker"
Results 741 - 760
of 850
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2007, 5:12 am
The bulk of the Court's opinion in United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 1:44 am
The Third Circuit clarified yesterday, in United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2007, 8:34 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 2:10 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 1:32 pm
Here is the starting paragraph:This appeal concerns the bounds of "reasonableness" after United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 1:19 am
In United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 8:19 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 12:41 pm
The panel notes that it can't address United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 11:18 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 10:00 am
Jones v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 8:31 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 11:25 pm
Then came Booker (argued in the Supreme Court by TChris who writes at TalkLeft) in United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 8:23 am
United States, No. 06-5618 (cert. granted, Nov. 3, 2006); and Rita v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 7:35 am
It starts with this notable sentence: "The California sentencing law that the Court strikes down today is indistinguishable in any constitutionally significant respect from the advisory Guidelines scheme that the Court approved in United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 4:36 am
§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B)(viii).HELD: Even after United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2007, 11:57 am
United States, 126 S. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 6:15 pm
By an evenly divided 6-6 vote, the Tenth Circuit denies initial hearing in banc of a case involving sentencing procedure under Booker v. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 7:53 am
However, I find it hard to square with his vote 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;… [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]
