Search for: "C Booker"
Results 1 - 20
of 334
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2009, 11:37 am
The court noted that Booker invalidated § 3553(b)(1), which does not cross- reference § 3582(c). [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 6:26 am
The Daily Caller writer, Charles C. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 6:22 am
Based on these findings, the Court reasoned, Booker’s constitutional holding did not apply to Section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 9:25 pm
As a result, we conclude that Booker simply has no bearing on sentencing modification proceedings conducted under § 3582(c)(2). [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 11:10 pm
Thanks to this post at C&C, I see that frequent commentor Bill Otis has a new article on federal sentencing appearing in the latest volume of Engage, the journal of the Federalist Society's practice groups. [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]
3 Nov 2006, 12:26 pm
In particular, I am wondering how the grants in Claiborne and Rita will impact (a) the reasonableness en banc in progress in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, (b) the development of reasonableness doctrines in other circuits, (c) the work of the US Sentencing Commission, and (d) the adovacy of DOJ for a Booker fix. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 6:56 am
Booker are resentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), after the guidelines applicable to the offense in question are changed. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 5:30 pm
Booker and 18 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 4:30 am
(Watch the entire panel at C-SPAN here, beginning at 3:38:24.) [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 11:13 am
After the Jury Acquits: Resolving the Post-Booker Acquitted Conduct Sentencing Dilemma. [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]
1 Nov 2018, 11:53 am
Rumpf and Assemblywoman DiAnne C. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 10:24 am
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 1:01 am
Soon, Hampton president Samuel C. [read post]
25 Jun 2007, 10:55 am
Booker, 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) was of little significance in federal criminal sentencing. [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 10:07 am
§ 3582(c). [read post]
20 Apr 2007, 9:14 am
Here is how it begins:Antonio C. [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]
4 Apr 2024, 10:01 pm
Soon, Hampton president Samuel C. [read post]
