« CA1: nothing | Main | CA1: not really that likely to be oppressed »

March 09, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2ca353ef00d83426be1b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CA1 en banc: guidelines not presumptively reasonable:

» Booker Reasonableness in the First from Puerto Rico Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
I'm back from a hiatus (only to be interrupted again by an upcoming trial). The First Circuit issued the much awaited en banc opinion(s) in US v. Jiménez-Beltre, No. 05-1268 (1st Cir. March 9, 2006) to decide the following issues: whether there is, pos... [Read More]

Comments

Peter G

I agree with you that Judge Howard's separate opinion, which he calls a "concurrence," should be labeled a dissent. He takes the position -- as the govt has been arguing unsuccessfully on a national basis -- that the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction even to review the reasonableness of a sentence that falls within the properly-calculated guideline range. (As the majority notes, the Supreme Court in Booker expressly stated the opposite, so the gov't's argument is untenable.) Since this sentence did fall within the range, Howard's opinion requires that he dissent from the majority's exercise of such jurisdiction, even to affirm. The real dissent is by Judge Lipez, who shows that the majority's "substantial weight" rule lacks a statutory basis, and that the district court therefore committed error in giving the guideline range such undue weight when imposing sentence.

The comments to this entry are closed.