Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
first amendment, restrictions on abortion protests United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell: 512 U.S. 821 (1994) constitutional limitations on the contempt powers of courts: United States v. Shabani: 513 U.S. 10 (1994) elements of criminal conspiracy (i.e., requirement for an overt act) United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. 513 U.S. 64 (1994)
[17] The "Drugs Minus Two Amendment" changed the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines to "reduce the applicable sentencing guideline range for most federal drug trafficking offenses." [ 17 ] The Commission voted to make the Amendment retroactive on July 18, 2014, "thereby allowing eligible offenders serving a previously imposed term of ...
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines— (i) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 (a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such guidelines by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to ...
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . [35] In Williams v. New York (1949), the Supreme Court held that due process does not require the use of ordinary evidentiary rules at sentencing. [36]
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were promulgated by a sentencing commission; the Washington sentencing guidelines at issue in Blakely, by contrast, were enacted by that state's legislature. That distinction, the Court said, "lacked constitutional significance," because regardless of the body that set the rules, the rules required sentencing ...
Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006) – States may limit the evidence of innocence a defendant may present at his sentencing hearing to evidence already presented at his trial. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) – Imposing the death penalty when mitigating and aggravating factors are in equipoise is constitutional. Kansas v.
The exception to this rule occurs when the court determines that such use would violate the ex post facto clause of the Constitution – in other words, if the sentencing guidelines have changed so as to increase the penalty "after the fact", so that the sentence is more severe on the sentencing date than was established on the date that the ...