Another Supreme Court term, another chapter in the sentencing saga. Thejustices heard argument Tuesday in two cases that test how muchdiscretion federal district court judges have in sentencing defendantsand examine the standard federal circuit court panels should apply inreviewing those sentences on appeal. At issue in one of the cases: thecontroversial 100:1 ratio used in calculating sentences for traffickingcrack as opposed to powder cocaine.

After the Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker madethe U.S. Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory and heldthat appeals courts should review sentences for “reasonableness,” thecircuits adopted various standards for that review. Most fall under thegeneral category of proportionality review, whereby the more thedistrict court deviates from the guidelines range, the stronger thejustification needed for the variance.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]