So parsimony does matter after all. SL&P analyzed the lack of attention paid to the parsimony clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) here, here, here, and here. But, an alert reader points to today's unpublished decision in U.S. v. Rosa, the “[g]overnment concedes that remand is necessary because the District Court made statements inconsistent with the 'parsimony clause' in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—that is, the statutory mandate to 'impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).”
Update: SL&P picks up on my post and provides a transcript excerpt wherein the judge says “I have a ten month period which is probably a bit long, but that’ll be the sentence today."
Comments