After thorough review, we are
constrained to conclude that even under the most recent Supreme Court
precedent, affording substantial deference to the district court's sentencing determinations, the district court abused its discretion
by imposing a probationary sentence on the defendant in this case.
Stare decisis is also defended on the ground that it increases the «perceived integrity of the judicial process»
by promoting the appearance of the rule of law.52 When courts cavalierly overrule their own
precedent, they may reduce the public's confidence in the view that judges are
constrained by the principles of law they espouse.53 However, granting binding precedential value to secret opinions fails to promote the appearance of the rule of law, precisely because these opinions are secret.