Sentences with phrase «within guidelines sentences»

I think it's a good thing that most judges will be giving within guidelines sentences.

Not exact matches

A government filing had demanded a stiff sentence near or within advisory guidelines of roughly 12 to 15 years for Dean Skelos and 10 to 12 years for Adam.

Berman in turn, has asked for help from readers, though he notes that both Libby and Victor Rita (whose case went to the Supreme Court) received 30 and 33 month sentences for perjury, both within applicable sentencing guidelines (though Libby's sentence was commuted).

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Circuits continue to have no trouble finding within - guideline sentences reasonable:

July 20, 2007)(available here), the Sixth Circuit affirms a district judge's choice of a within - guideline sentence because the «district court offered clear reasons for its sentence [having] articulated the various § 3553 (a) factors and then identified the two factors it found most relevant.»

However, one can also validly say that, in FY 2006, the number of departures have nearly doubled and that the number of within - guideline sentences remains well lower after Booker than before Booker.

«Are within - guideline crack sentences now presumptively unreasonable after Rita?

On the one hand, those circuits that have been applying a presumption of reasonableness to within - guideline sentences now have conclusive authority that they can continue to do so.

But, on the other hand, and perhaps even more importantly as a practical matter, the opinion for the Court in Rita suggests that at least some within - guideline sentences in some cases have to be, at some point, found unreasonable by circuit courts.

In a circuit where within - guidelines sentences were per se reasonable, I think his dissent would carry the day.

As Souter points out, though, to call this an «appellate presumption» is to turn a blind eye to the fact that the trial courts are all keenly aware of what their Court of Appeals is looking for — a within - Guidelines sentence.

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.»

He states that» [a] n individual judge who imposes a sentence within the range recommended by the Guidelines thus makes a decision that is fully consistent with the Commission's judgment in general.»

And crack defendants sentenced within the old guidelines won't find relief unless they preserved the argument that the crack / cocaine disparity justifies a below - sentence guideline.

Main Rudy Giuliani suggests Libby's within - guideline sentence is unreasonable»

Though perhaps I am trying to turn this into a «dogs not barking» story, I am very troubled to see that Eighth Circuit today apparently affirms a within - the - old - crack guidelines sentence in an unpublished Anders case in US v. Wanton, No. 06 - 3502 (8th Cir.

Adding all this up — and again keeping in mind the USSC's own official, repeated and emphatic assertions that the crack guidelines are «greater than necessary» to achieve serve § 3553 (a)-- shouldn't a circuit court view a within - guideline crack sentences as presumptively unreasonable?

As I first noted here, the Supreme Court's decision in Rita upholds the Fourth Circuit's decision to adopt a presumption of reasonableness for within - guideline sentences, but also indirectly approves of other circuits» decisions to resist adopting this presumption.

Nov. 7, 2007)(available here), reveals yet again that some circuits view any within - guideline sentence as essentially per se reasonable.

I was hopeful — though not especially optimistic — that circuit courts would review within - guideline sentences with a bit more rigor after Rita.

The first source to be examined when defining the role of the compliance officer within an organization is the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Since the Eighth Circuit has adopted a presumption of reasonableness for within - guideline sentences, perhaps it seemed obvious to the defense counsel that a sentencing appeal was friviolous.

Federal sentencing fanatics know that the Paul case in the Ninth Circuit is significant because it was arguably the first (and might still be considered the only) circuit ruling that a within - guideline sentence should be reversed as substantively unreasonable.

Actually, DOJ is only recommending a within - guideline sentence for Samuel Mullet Sr. (and it is recommending well - below guideline sentences for all the other Amish defendants).

The guideline sentence ought not be given, and a traditional departure is justified, if the offense or offender is «atypical» and thus not within the «mine - run of similar» cases.

Despite the «rough approximation» of the Guidelines, there must be some within - guideline that do not achieve § 3553 (a)'s objectives and circuit courts have to identify the «times» when district judges impose sentences that are unreasonable.

After Booker, a circuit court reviewing a within - guideline sentence may fairly «assume that the Guidelines, insofar as practicable, reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve § 3553 (a)'s objectives.»

-- «as - applied Sixth Amendment challenges» to within - guideline sentences.

The difference would be that on appellate review, rather than reviewing a within - guidelines, presumptively - reasonable sentence, the Court would be reviewing a way - above - guidelines sentence — which of course it could still affirm as substantively reasonable.

Rather, Marcial - Santiago only stands for the proposition that a within - guideline sentence is not necessarily unreasonable for failure to consider fast - track disparity.

Even if within - guidelines sentences are presumed reasonable, appellate courts have differed on the precise standard a party must meet to overcome that presumption.

Before the guidelines a defendant who got the 20 year sentence couldnt even appeal since the sentence was within the statutory range.

I think the biggest mystery is just how does a person overcome the presumption on appeal that a sentence imposed within the guideline range is unreasonable.

Appellants must always show error, and a within - guidelines sentence is at least one step away from obvious error absent a showing of contrary reasons in a given case or with respect to a particular set of recurring factors.

You may be right that judges tend overwhelmingly to sentence within the guidelines, because they believe that extraordinary circumstances are required to do otherwise.

After accepting Tom's guilty plea, the court declined to sentence within the Guidelines range or to imprison Tom, and stated three reasons for its 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?

The undersigned applaud the Sentencing Commission's consideration of an amendment to increase the availability of sentences of alternatives to incarceration within the federal sentencing gSentencing Commission's consideration of an amendment to increase the availability of sentences of alternatives to incarceration within the federal sentencing gsentencing guidelines.

But it still leaves open the question of when a within - guidelines sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Filling in another piece of the reasonableness puzzle, the DC Circuit on Friday adopted the (widely debated) presumption of reasonableness for within - guideline sentences after Booker.

As detailed in this webpage (which has links to the briefs in Claiborne here and Rita here), as part of the amicus effort, «NYCDL compiled and analyzed a database of 1,515 post-Booker reasonableness review cases,» which documented «that the courts of appeals have affirmed nearly all within - and above - guidelines sentences while reversing nearly all below - guidelines sentences appealed by the government.»

In addition to his case work, Mr. Safwat worked on policy matters such as new criminal discovery initiatives within the Criminal Division and on proposed amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines relating to corporate accounting fraud and insider trading.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ninth Circuit reverses within - guideline sentence as substantively unreasonable!!

Proceedings below: Mario Claiborne received a below - guideline sentence of 15 months in prison in the district court, but the Eighth Circuit reversed this sentence as unreasonably low on the government's appeal; Victor Rita received a within - guideline sentence of 33 months in prison in the district court, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed this sentence as reasonable.

It tries to minimize the effect that a presumption of reasonableness will have on the gravitational pull towards within - guidelines sentences so much so that, I can't quite figure out what the point of a presumption of reasonableness («POR») is?

Overall, 79.8 percent of all sentences imposed in FY 2017 were either within the applicable guidelines range, above the range, or below the range at the request of the government.

The Ohio Supreme Court overturned that ruling and said judges could, in most cases, impose any sentence within the guidelines.

David in NY, while I haven't looked at each of those cases, I think most circuits would agree that if the court only referenced the presumption of reasonableness and then sentenced within the Guidelines, then that would be reversible error.

Dec. 12, 2007)(available here), a panel affirms a within - guideline sentence and starts its sentencing discussion with these Gall goodies:

Thus, district courts say they are sentencing based on 3553 (a), but because of the presumption, they sentence within the Guidelines.