April 2, 2009
Sixth Circuit vacates sentence for lack of adequate explanation
Though very few post-Gall appeals lead to reversals of sentences as substantively unreasonable, we are still getting a reasonable number of opinions concluding that a district court has failed to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence it has imposed. The Sixth Circuit today, for example, in US v. Gapinski, No. 08-1193 (6th Cir. April 2, 2009) (available here), demands a redo because "the record does not show that the district court considered and explained its reasons for rejecting Gapinski’s nonfrivolous argument for a lower sentence based upon substantial assistance to the government."
April 2, 2009 at 06:35 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sixth Circuit vacates sentence for lack of adequate explanation:
What bothers me here is that yet another district court took possible future motions by the government into account when crafting the initial sentence. This is the second such case you've highlighted in the last few days.
Is that a fluke or are such misteps common?
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Apr 3, 2009 10:00:56 AM