Search for: "P. v. Booker"
Results 1 - 20
of 119
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2007, 1:50 pm
P. 32(h) for sua sponte upward departures does or does not apply to Booker variances. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 6:56 am
The case is Dillon v. [read post]
14 Mar 2006, 1:44 pm
The United States Sentencing Commission has released a Report on the Impact of United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2008, 7:32 am
Thanks to AL&P, you can read a full summary here of the First Circuit's important post-Booker work from last Friday in US v. [read post]
29 Dec 2006, 11:59 am
P., if they are considering imposing a sentence above the now advisory guideline range, even after the Supreme Court's Booker decision which rendered the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. [read post]
5 May 2005, 3:29 pm
From the 7th Circuit we get United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2007, 10:55 am
Until the decision in United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2006, 3:01 pm
In United States v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 8:52 pm
The attorneys of the law firm of Santucci Priore, P.L. have been retained by the Defendants in the case of Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Limited v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 8:19 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Feb 2007, 5:27 am
Id., p. 3. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 1:26 pm
Matter of Lockitt v Booker 2011 NY Slip Op 00382 Decided on January 18, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Wife petitioned for an upwars modification of child support, husband did not show up to the hearing, and the Family Court entered a default order. [read post]
30 May 2010, 8:09 pm
Booker, 2010 U.S. [read post]
20 Dec 2007, 11:04 pm
Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005); see also supra p. 4.FN2. [read post]
4 Apr 2007, 2:40 am
Booker, 542 U.S. 220 (2005), an incongruent pattern of caselaw has developed among those federal circuits that have considered whether Burns v. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 2:02 pm
P. 32(h). [read post]
10 Jun 2005, 5:37 am
In a Booker remand in United States v. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 9:29 am
U.S. v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 9:00 am
As Lord Hobhouse put it in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 at p. 238 'No public interest is served by publishing or communicating misinformation.' In my experience, parents involved in court proceedings cannot always be relied upon to be unbiased and dispassionate. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 12:27 pm
Thanks to this post at AL&P, I see that the First Circuit has weighed in today through US v. [read post]
