Search for: "Gall v. United States"
Results 161 - 180
of 285
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2008, 12:50 am
Monday, in United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2008, 7:14 am
See United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 11:46 pm
After pleading guilty to several counts of healthcare fraud, theft and money laundering, the defendant in United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2008, 8:16 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 10:28 am
In United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 10:34 pm
United States its special speedy issue on Rita. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 4:57 pm
We deferred submission pending our en banc decision in United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 3:10 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 3:57 pm
July 3, 2008) (available here):On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration under Gall. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 1:29 pm
Here is the abstract: When the Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 4:45 pm
" Gall v. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 6:25 am
In United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 8:32 pm
In United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 7:14 pm
Two-Tier Partnership Tracks at AmLaw 200 Law Firms: Theory and Evidence Ruth Mason, Prospects for a Multilateral Treaty Between the United States and the European Union David Reiss, Subprime Standardization: How Rating Agencies Allow Predatory Lending to Flourish in the Secondary Mortgage Market and How They Can Be Stopped Michael Woronoff & Jonathan Rosen, Understanding Anti-Dilution Provisions in Convertible Securities [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Rowan, No. 05-30536 On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, a 60-month sentence of supervised release following a conviction for possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) defendant's sentence is a non-Guideline sentence since it falls outside the applicable range and was not based on an allowed departure; but 2) in light of the deferential standard set forth in Gall, there was no significant procedural error in the sentencing decision. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 4:10 am
This is a fact that any sentencing system, not just the United States Sentencing Guidelines, would take into account. [read post]
5 Jun 2008, 4:12 pm
Compare this case with United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 8:29 pm
" See United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 10:42 am
Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 247 (2d Cir. 2005), thus "seriously affect[ing] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings," United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 10:32 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
