Another notable sentencing ruling from the Sixth Circuit

Keeping up with just the Sixth Circuit sentencing jurisprudence is becoming a full-time job, and today brings yet another thoughtful sentencing ruling from a panel of that court.  Today's work is in US v. Conatser et al., Nos. 06-5694/5946 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2008) (available here), and the start of Judge Moore's partial concurrence provides a flavor for some of the issues being discussed in this decision:

I join the majority opinion in most respects, but I write separately because I believe that the majority gives inadequate attention to Marlowe’s argument that his sentence of life imprisonment violates the Sixth Amendment because judge-found facts triggered a substantial increase in his advisory Guidelines range.  Although I do not believe that Marlowe’s sentence violates the Constitution, his claim deserves a more detailed analysis than it received in the majority opinion.  Therefore, I concur in the judgment upholding Marlowe’s sentence.