Sentences with phrase «guidelines range»

There should, after all, be some sense of fairness to defendants one and all, and generally, having a sentencing guideline range helps assure that.

The sentence was within the applicable Guidelines range, so the hurdle is high to argue that the sentence is unreasonable.

Obviously, the same holds true for sentences dramatically above the advisory Guidelines range.

We do not rule that a sentence below a properly calculated guidelines range would have been improper in this case.

The typical defendants sentenced in federal court for child porn offense have not been convicted of contact offenses and have strong arguments for being sentenced below the severe federal sentencing guideline ranges.

After carefully considering those factors, the District Court sentenced Adelson principally to 42 months» imprisonment, a sentence substantially below the applicable Guidelines range of life in prison, and also imposed an order of restitution of $ 50 million, payable to the company's shareholders, and directed Adelson to forfeit $ 1.2 million in criminal proceeds.

The low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range for Tom, including a two - level increase for obstruction of justice, was thirty - seven months» imprisonment, and the prosecution agreed to make that recommendation as part of a plea agreement.

The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range recommended for the offense to which Pugh pled guilty — knowing possession of images of child pornography that were mailed, shipped or transported by computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2252A (a)(5)(B) and 2256 (8)(A)-- was 97 to 120 months» imprisonment.

I wonder if we're going to see another strong press to demand guideline range sentences as if Rita declared that district courts must apply a presumption that the guidelines sentence should be used.

Is the Court establishing the bottom of the unenhanced Guidelines range (i.e., using just the base offense level) itself as a mandatory minimum?

July 20, 2007)(available here), the DC Circuit has to vacate and remand a sentence because «the record is muddled as to whether the district court considered [a particular guideline range as the] starting point for its analysis.»

It asserts simply that all the mitigating issues raised by Otterson «were clearly presented to the court in the PSR and at the sentencing hearing and are accounted for in the undisputed Guidelines range.»

I can think of one scenario: a judge imposes the maximum guideline range for an offense that doesn't seem to have any extraordinary or egregiously aggravating factors and the court makes no mention — and apparently gives no weight — to mitigating factors like the defendant's abuse as a child, complete cooperation with authorities investigating the crime.

«While a handful of district courts, following Booker, have taken it upon themselves to lower guideline ranges for crack offenses based on a perceived unfairness in comparison with sentencing for powder cocaine crimes, this is plainly beyond judicial authority, and the appellate courts to address the matter have unanimously rejected this result.

The main feature of a structured sentencing framework, Lord Carter says, is «a single comprehensive set of indicative guideline ranges».

But in light of the conspiracy finding, the court calculated much higher Guidelines ranges, and sentenced Jones, Thurston, and Ball to 180, 194, and 225 months» imprisonment.

Wilms argues that the district court improperly applied a presumption of reasonableness to the applicable Guidelines range, thereby failing to consider properly the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a).

For a host of reasons, I would expect the calculated guideline range for Nassar on his federal child porn charges to be life imprisonment, and I would predict that he will get a richly deserved statutory maximum sentence of 60 years imprisonment at his upcoming federal sentencing.

Can someone explain the meaning of this sentence on page 14 of the majority opinion: «As far as the law is concerned, the judge could disregard the Guidelines and apply the same sentence (higher than the statutory minimum or the bottom of the unenhanced Guidelines range) in the absence of the special facts (say, gun brandishing) which, in the view of the Sentencing Commission, would warrant a higher sentence within the statutorily permissible range.»

The persistence of Rule 32 (h): The circuits are nearly evenly split on whether Rule 32 (h) requires a district court to give advance notice before varying from the advisory guidelines range.

At sentencing, the District Court Judge will rule on all objections and calculate an advisory sentencing guideline range.

The guidelines range from «be skeptical of headlines» and «look closely at the URL» to «look at other reports» and «is the story a joke?»

«The guidelines range is high because the United States Sentencing Commission explicitly has recognized the «threat to the integrity of democratic processes» caused by public corruption offenses,» the feds wrote.

As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range.

And the guy's guidelines range was lower than the defendant from United States v. Grinbergs, 470 F. 3d 758 (8th Cir.

That inclusion, the court said, made the guidelines range 37 to 46 months, rather than 33 to 41.

Despite making numerous non-frivolous mitigating argument, Otterson was given four more years in prison than the (presumptively reasonable) guideline range demands, and it is hard for him or anyone else to understand exactly why.

As hinted in this account, Lord Black got the benefit of very favorable guideline rulings at the outset of his sentencing and they got a sentence at the bottom of the calculated guideline range.

Moreover, and perhaps even more disturbing, neither the district court or the Eighth Circuit panel explained why they view as «sufficient but not greater than necessary» for Otterson a prison sentence of 235 months (at the top of the applicable guideline range), instead of a sentence of, say, 188 months (at the bottom of the range).

As some may recall (and as detailed in posts here and here), Cavera is the fascinating case in which Judge Sifton decided to enhance a sentence above the guideline range in a gun case because he viewed gun possession in urban spots like NYC to be especially bad.

This report will be used by you, your attorney, the United States Attorney's Office and the Judge to look at the facts of your case, your personal history and financial condition, and your sentencing guideline range.

According to Gates» plea agreement with the special counsel's office, he faces an estimated sentencing guidelines range of between 57 and 71 months in jail and a fine between $ 20,000 and $ 200,000; those numbers could change when the guidelines range is ultimately calculated, the judge noted.

After completing this review, the court imposed sentences that are within the Guidelines ranges.

At Appellants» sentencing hearings, the district court noted that the Guidelines ranges were advisory, considered and rejected Appellants» arguments regarding the disparity between sentences imposed in the District of Montana and in fast - track districts, and weighed the other § 3553 (a) factors.

The door therefore remains open for a defendant to demonstrate that his sentence, whether inside or outside the advisory Guidelines range, would not have been upheld but for the existence of a fact found by the sentencing judge and not by the jury.»)

The guideline range for a «micro» company guilty of category A corporate manslaughter offence is # 270,000 to # 800,000, with a starting point of # 450,000.

That is, you could say that the defendant's guidelines range has to be calculated by reference to facts admitted by the defendant or found by a jury.

In theory, you could take sort of a hybrid approach that allows for judicial fact - finding and reliance on acquitted and uncharged conduct, but without having those facts determine the applicable guidelines range.

But my point is simply that there's a middle position between «no consideration of uncharged / acquitted conduct» and «use uncharged / acquitted conduct to calculate the guidelines range, with all the attendant consequences it entails.»

All Congress will need is a couple of cases where sentences are below the Guidelines range before it will decry the «softhearded» judges and make some more ill - advised and exceedingly harsh criminal penalities.