Sentences with phrase «abuse of discretion review»

We conclude, in the words of the Supreme Court in Gall, that «[o] n abuse of discretion review, [we give] due deference to the [d] istrict [c] ourt's reasoned and reasonable decision that the § 3553 (a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence.»

MYSTERY # 1 Answer: Isn't the presumption - on - appeal just another way of saying that abuse of discretion review applies — per Stevens — and that sentencing within the guidelines is presumptively a reasoned exercise of discretion, given all the reasoning behind the guidelines, at least where all the proper procedural steps were taken by the district court at sentencing?

Not exact matches

The standard of review almost always requires the petitioner to show that the failure to prosecute was «an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.»

The Rita standard for a guidelines sentence seems to be an «abuse of discretion plus» standard of review.

The court recognized that the standard of review on appeal for an award of spousal support was an abuse of discretion, citing Fox v. Fox, 61 Va..

On appeal, the Virginia Court of Appeals recognized that the applicable standard for reviewing a trial court's ruling that a party was in contempt of court was the abuse of discretion standard, citing Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va..

But, because Thomson did not produce any supporting evidence, her claim fails whether we review it as a direct appeal or discretionary review, de novo or for abuse of discretion.»

Sole custody orders issued by an Arizona judge may be appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which will review the case to determine if there were apparent errors in interpreting the law in regards to the situation at hand or a trial judge's abuse of his or her discretion.

In the expanded panel's decision denying General Plastic's request for rehearing, the board announced that when exercising its discretion to institute, it will consider both the AIA's goal of providing an «effective and efficient alternative» to federal court litigation, but also «the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents.»

We review the court's ruling on a petition for modification of child support for an abuse of discretion.

[45] In explaining how I reach this conclusion, I first outline the approach to the review of prosecutorial discretion, including the threshold evidentiary burden that must be met by an accused person alleging an abuse of process based on the improper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

A trial court's ruling on the relevancy issue is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.

Temporary relief orders for alimony must be supported by competent, substantial evidence and are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

On appeal, the record was considered to ascertain facts of the case and reviewed for any abuse of discretion.

After review, the court of appeals found the court did not abuse its discretion.

Given the «typical case» characterization of the trial judge and the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review, the appellant court perceived the lower court could have reasoned that the hourly rate was too high or number of hours claimed excessive for a case which was not extraordinary in nature.

Although not stated in Castro, we believe that a determination on this issue would be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

Although an order denying routine costs is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, there is an important qualifier to application of this rule — there must be an indication that the trial court actually did exercise discretion.

The next case shows how a litigant may convince an appellate court that legal error was committed (de novo review of a fee entitlement issue), but the battle for reversal is lost for failure to surmount an abuse of discretion issue (failure to apportion fees between covered and uncovered fee claims for relief).

Most importantly on appeal, lower courts» 271 decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, focusing on whether substantial evidence supports a particular decision.

That determination was affirmed on appeal because the amount of fees award is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

Highmark Decided That Appellate Courts Should Review All Aspects of a Section 285 Fee Determination for Abuse of Discretion.

The standard of review was determinative, because a «good faith» determination in this context is a discretionary call for the lower court and reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

[UNPUBLISHED][Per Curiam - Before Bye, Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges]: On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration under Gall v. U.S.. Under the more deferential abuse - of - discretion review outlined in Gall, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 132 months, and the sentence is affirmed.

Most lawyers know that appellate courts usually review lower courts» legal decisions de novo, while overturning factfinding and trial management decisions only if the lower court was guilty of «abuse of discretion.»

Initially, the First Circuit focused on the standards of Daubert / Kumho, stating that this type of expert testimony is subject to a Daubert review, that the trial judge has broad latitude in determining the admissibility of an expert, and that the trial judge's decision will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion.

Upon judicial review, the Federal Court affirmed that the Immigration Division has little discretion to determine whether there was an abuse of process beyond the proceedings immediately before it.

The court has wide discretion in allowing experiments, demonstrations, and tests, and the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

This is all the more true when review of that decision is basically upon an abuse of discretion grounds.

The foregoing demonstrates that the application of Rule 1910.16 - 5 (m) has been fact - specific and inconsistent in shared custody cases, partly because the «abuse of discretion» standard of appellate review necessitates subjective analysis of a myriad and disparate variety of family circumstances.