April 17, 2006
The Ninth Circuit on the need to explain
The Ninth Circuit today in US v. Miqbel, No. 05-10033 (9th Cir. Aprl. 17, 2006) (available here), vacated a pre-Booker sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release because the district judge failed to adequately state the reasons for a sentence outside the recommended range. In addition to making a great (but illegal) Scrabble word, Miqbel is a lengthy ruling with lots of post-Booker-relevant dicta about sentencing outside an advisory range and the dynamics of reasonableness review.
April 17, 2006 at 03:44 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Ninth Circuit on the need to explain:
The more interesting part of this opinion is Part IV in which the Court officially recognizes that "just punishment" is NOT a goal of sentencing in a violation case. This rule runs contrary to the views of the many judges and probation officers who favor harsh punishment after a violation. I hope the case causes others to drop that word from their vocabularies in violation cases.
Posted by: Tim Zindel | Apr 19, 2006 6:38:44 PM