Appellate Law

CA1: First says Gall doesn?t change much.

By S. COTUS

US v. Smith, No. 07-1684.  The defendant appeals a sentence for reasonableness, and argues ?...accuses the district court of paying lip service to the advisory nature of the guidelines while treating the GSR as presumptively reasonable.?  The District Judge first said he was ?hamstrung? and then he said he wasn?t.  The First says that the District Judge understood that he wasn?t hamstrung.  It also says that the District Court judge did not undervalue the 3553 factors.

Finally, it rejects a parsimony argument, because the judge said that the public needs to be protected from this guy.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 02, 2008 (boomark / email).