« SCOTUS decides to dodge reconsideration of big confrontation clause issues | Main | Lots of good reading around the crim law blogosphere... »
January 25, 2010
SCOTUS grants cert on another mandatory minimum sentencing issue
Adding to a docket that is already heavy with important sentencing cases, the Supreme Court this morning added another through its cert grant the consolidated cases of Abbott v. United States (09-479) and Gould v. United States (09-7073). Here is how SCOTUSblog decribes the issue in Abbott, along with links to key materials in the case:
Docket: 09-479
Title: Abbott v. United States(1) Whether the term “any other provision of law” of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) includes the underlying drug trafficking offense or crime of violence; and (2) if not, whether it includes another offense for possessing the same firearm in the same transaction?
As federal criminal justice practioners know, the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in 924(c) concerning the use of firearms in connection with other offenses are extremely significant and consequential. It is unclear if Abbott and Gould could have a broad impact in other cases, but they clearly present yet another important set of cases to watch over the next few months.
January 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20128770e19d2970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SCOTUS grants cert on another mandatory minimum sentencing issue:
Comments
The links appear to have gone bad.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jan 25, 2010 2:12:18 PM
If Abbott and Gould are not correct in their argument, then isn't 924(c)(1)(D)(i) superfluous? What possible purpose would that subsection have if it isn't possible, in some situations, to disregard the mandatory minimums found in subsections (c)(1)(A)-(C) of the statute?
Posted by: DEJ | Jan 26, 2010 11:18:28 AM
Just thinking about these multiple mandatory issues makes my brain hurt. Of course, thanks to Booker, you cheerleaders for "judicial discretion" aren't going to get anything out of Congress but mandatories.
And probably sooner than you think if the recent Massachusetts' election is any indication.
Good work.
Posted by: Ferris Bueller | Jan 26, 2010 12:48:19 PM
Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county, and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” — a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups.
Posted by: buy generic viagra | Aug 9, 2010 1:35:48 AM
in a case where firearm in involved and a MINIMUM MANDATORY of 5 years is in guidelines, can that be lowered according to Booker variance? OR is it that since its a MIN Mandatory it cannot be lowered under any circumstance? Thank you very much for your response and time.
Posted by: anna | Nov 27, 2012 7:18:05 PM
