January 12, 2018
Supreme Court grants cert on a couple of (small?) sentencing cases
Via this order list, the US Supreme Court added twelve cases to its merits docket. A couple involve sentencing issues, and here they are with an assist from SCOTUSblog:
Chavez-Meza v. United States, No. 17-5639
Issue: Whether, when a district court decides not to grant a proportional sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), it must provide some explanation for its decision when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits have held, or whether it can issue its decision without any explanation so long as it is issued on a preprinted form order containing the boilerplate language providing that the court has “tak[en] into account the policy statement set forth in 18 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th and 10th Circuits have held.
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs for reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim's own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.
As the title of this post suggests, my first take is that these issues are pretty small in scope and significance. But I am still always excited to see SCOTUS care about sentencing matters.
January 12, 2018 at 03:51 PM | Permalink
Lagos is a fine illustration of the claim that no good deed goes unpunished. How many financial corporations have childcare expenses related to trial? Zero. That's right. Because that law was written to help victims of child sexual abuse recover their expenses when involved in legal cases against their abusers. Lagos may seems small but it has Yates written all over it.
Posted by: selfie man | Jan 13, 2018 11:38:33 AM