Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) does not apply to a variance from a recommended Federal Sentencing Guidelines range; that rule applies only to "departures." [1] [2]
The Guidelines are the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. [3] The Guidelines' primary goal was to alleviate sentencing disparities that research had indicated were prevalent in the existing sentencing system, and the guidelines reform was specifically intended to provide for determinate sentencing.
Other appellate circuits had considered whether Rule 32(h) required notice of contemplation for a variance in the wake of the Supreme Court's holding the previous year in United States v. Booker that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were purely advisory, and come to differing conclusions in mostly unpublished opinions. [8]
The Sentencing Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-182) enacted some changes to the federal sentencing regime in the United States. The legislation amended 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) to permit expressly departures based on circumstances of an exceptional "kind" or "degree".
Acceptance of responsibility is a provision in the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines providing for a decrease by 2 or 3 levels in offenders' offense level for admitting guilt and otherwise demonstrating behavior consistent with acceptance of responsibility, such as ending criminal conduct and associations.
In its majority decision, the Court struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines range, along with the provision that deprived federal appeals courts of the power to review sentences imposed outside the range. The ...
The life cycle of federal supervision for a defendant. United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, [1] or in addition to home detention, [2] while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable.