« Putting Baze et al. in perspective | Main | A great animal irony in the Baze oral argument »

January 7, 2008

Lots of Gall and Kimbrough GVRs this morning from SCOTUS

The first 17 pages of this new order list released by the Supreme Court this morning are taken up a whole big bunch of Gall and Kimbrough GVRs — which means the Supreme Court Granted the petition for review, and then Vacated the circuit court's decision below, and then Remanded the case for further consideration by lower courts in light of the decisions in Gall and Kimbrough.

I quickly counted about 75 GVRs in those pages and same the names of many of the defendants in some of the better-known crack/powder circuit cases — e.g., Pho from the First Circuit, Eura from the Fourth Circuit, Jointer from the Seventh Circuit, Spears from the Eighth Circuit.  These GVRs are not that surprising, but how the circuit courts deal with all these cases they got wrong the first time will be interesting to watch.

Relatedly, I would be grateful if readers could spotlight in the comments any other notable cases appearing on — or missing from — this long GVR list.

January 7, 2008 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e54fc3c4178833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lots of Gall and Kimbrough GVRs this morning from SCOTUS:

Comments

On the cert denied list, I think Pickett, No. 07-218, was the Judge Randolph DC Circuit opinion that you flagged awhile back.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/02/dc_circuit_thou.html

It appears that the government filed a cert petition in that case, and the Supremes denied cert.

If I'm identifying the case correctly, the denial is not a surprise at all (as the DC Circuit was on the right side of the split), but interesting nonetheless.

Posted by: | Jan 7, 2008 10:56:33 AM

William J. Davis is headed back to the Sixth Circuit for a third time. His case was one of the first post-Booker cases in the Sixth, and that court was fairly non-deferential to the sentencing discretion of the district court. (In particular, the Sixth used a "mathematical formula" approach to variances that was shot down in Gall.) Davis' case will be a good test to see if the Courts of Appeals are willing, post-Gall, to be truly deferential to district courts when reviewing sentences.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 7, 2008 11:30:21 AM

U.S. v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2007) was denied cert.

"No matter what the underlying rationale may have been for challenging Almendarez-Torres 'to preserve the issue for further review,' it is time to admit that the Supreme Court has spoken. In the future, barring new developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence, arguments seeking reconsideration of Almendarez-Torres will be viewed with skepticism, much like arguments challenging the constitutionality of the federal income tax. It would be prudent for appellants and their counsel not to damage their credibility with this court by asserting non-debatable arguments.

Posted by: Jason | Jan 7, 2008 11:37:03 AM

U.S. v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2007) was denied cert.

"No matter what the underlying rationale may have been for challenging Almendarez-Torres 'to preserve the issue for further review,' it is time to admit that the Supreme Court has spoken. In the future, barring new developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence, arguments seeking reconsideration of Almendarez-Torres will be viewed with skepticism, much like arguments challenging the constitutionality of the federal income tax. It would be prudent for appellants and their counsel not to damage their credibility with this court by asserting non-debatable arguments.

Posted by: Jason | Jan 7, 2008 11:37:43 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB