Search for: "C Booker"
Results 41 - 60
of 334
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2008, 3:11 pm
C. [read post]
26 Feb 2005, 6:15 am
All PRACDL members are urged to submit information as to each sentencing hearing they attend, so as to give us all a better idea of how Judges are sentencing post-Booker. [read post]
22 Jun 2006, 7:30 am
§ 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) for having created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 12:53 pm
§ 841(c)(2). [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 10:04 am
Ruling in accord with a recent Tenth Circuit ruling concerning Booker's inapplicability to crack retroactivity proceedings (blogged here), the Fourth Circuit yesterday US v. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 2:22 am
United States, 06-6330 (per Booker, crack guidelines are advisory only; judge may consider crack/powder disparity in sentencing below the guidelines).United States v. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 9:30 am
Booker v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:27 pm
" The court went on to hold that "[s]ince section 3582(c)(2)'s requirement that a district court consider whether its reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission's Policy Statement is a limitation on a district court's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court's recent Sixth Amendment sentencing jurisprudence, including Booker, is not applicable and the district court remains limited by the Policy Statement. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 5:19 am
For those courts and cases, Autery reinforces the value of 11(c)(1)(C) deals.Finally, note that a separate standard-of-review remains for procedural sentencing error. [read post]
11 Oct 2006, 5:57 am
On appeal, the Second Circuit remanded the case for resentencing pursuant to Booker and Crosby. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 6:53 am
§ 3582(c)(2). [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 9:56 pm
Atwell, the Middle District of Florida held that Booker should not be extended and applied to § 3582 resentencings. [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]
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]
27 Oct 2016, 4:05 pm
Mr Booker says that the woman had power of attorney but the judgment does not mention this. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 2:35 pm
(C) deals are particularly good after Booker, to provide certainty amongst the uncertainty caused by the advisory guidelines. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 1:18 pm
., William C. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 9:29 am
In Lowe, the 9th held that a district court's discretionary denial of a 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction motion was unreviewable on appeal. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 10:27 am
The increased discretion granted to judges by the Booker decision only amplifies the importance of articulating the reasons for a particular sentence and requires sentencing judges' compliance with § 3553(c)'s requirements. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 7:02 pm
C to Pet. for Cert. 56. [read post]
