Search for: "Kimbrough v. United States"
Results 121 - 140
of 206
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2007, 10:29 am
United States (06-571). [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 10:32 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 6:46 pm
U.S., No. 07-10689 Sentence for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute is reversed and the case remanded where the district court's statements during sentencing showed that it did not think it had the discretion, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Kimbrough v. [read post]
5 Oct 2008, 3:06 pm
"United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 2:00 am
United States
5
12/10/07
06-7949
Gall v. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 10:38 pm
In Kimbrough v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 9:57 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 10:51 am
Court cited United States v. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 4:51 am
The Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 4:59 am
United States and Kimbrough v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 10:40 pm
United States, 128 S. [read post]
11 Jun 2007, 1:00 pm
Lyle has more details on today's grant in No. 06-6330, Kimbrough v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 3:10 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 2:13 am
United StatesCRIMINAL PRACTICE - SENTENCING"Under Kimbrough v. [read post]
1 May 2011, 10:42 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 10:17 pm
This conclusion is not undermined by Kimbrough v. [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 1:15 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 6:28 am
§ 3582, or whether this Court's holding in United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 10:44 pm
Citing the reasoning in the recent Supreme Court decision, Kimbrough v United States that permitted Federal District Courts to consider the "100-1" ratio when considering whether or not to sentence below the federal sentencing guidelines in crack (or cocaine base) cases, Tilem & Campbell asked the Courts to take the ruling one step further and declare the mandatory minimums unconstitutional. [read post]
23 Oct 2010, 12:28 pm
Well, it's been a while, but the court has finally issued a couple of summary orders of interest.In United States v. [read post]
