Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Sentencing Law and Policy
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Sentencing Law and PolicyIrizarry is interesting, but is it important or just iterant?
By Douglas A. Berman
ADVERTISEMENTS
The three short opinions in Irizarry are all quite interesting (basics here), though I am not sure upon first read whether the ruling is very important or just a review of matters established by modern Booker progeny like Gall and Kimbrough. Here is key language from the majority opinion by Justice Stevens that serves to emphasize the departure/variance distinction:?Departure? is a term of art under the Guidelines and refers only to non-Guidelines sentences imposed under the framework set out in the Guidelines....
Although the Guidelines, as the ?starting point and the initial benchmark,? continue to play a role in the sentencing determination, see Gall, 552 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11), there is no longer a limit comparable to the one at issue in Burns on the variances from Guidelines ranges that a District Court may find justified under the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U...continue to full postFull post as published by Sentencing Law and Policy on June 12, 2008 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Argument Preview: Irizarry v. United States
Irizarry: 32(h) does not require notice of contemplated variance
EDNY Judge Irizarry Finds Government Breached Plea Agreement with Improper Advocacy at Sentencing
Who Is Responsible For Blogging Comments








