July 18, 2006
Seventh Circuit reverses within-guideline sentence, I think
Though a little opage, the Seventh Circuit's ruling in US v. Bullock, No. 05-2655 (7th Cir. July 18, 2006) (available here), seems to reverse what is arguably a within-guideline sentence (of 1200 months)! Though the facts and ruling are hardly a ringing endorsement for rigorous reasonableness review, the Seventh Circuit's reversal of the defendant's 100-year sentence for five counts of distributing heroin is still noteworthy and important.
July 18, 2006 at 11:10 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Seventh Circuit reverses within-guideline sentence, I think:
But reasonableness review is not the reason for the reversal: the remand is premised on the district court's Guidelines errors regarding relevant conduct and acceptance of responsibility.
Posted by: Booker fan | Jul 19, 2006 9:59:11 AM
True: a Guidelines error creates a sentence that is per se unreasonable, and so it's hard to view the vacated sentence as "within-Guidelines"
Posted by: Steve | Jul 19, 2006 11:45:18 AM
I totally love footnote one.
Posted by: Scott | Jul 19, 2006 2:20:03 PM