Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Two-and-a-half years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the remedial portion of its bifurcated decision in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that the system of federal Sentencing Guidelines established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 could pass constitutional muster only if the Guidelines were treated as having advisory, rather than mandatory, effect. But Booker left open the question of how much weight the now advisory Guidelines should henceforth be given in a district court's sentencing calculus. Was the Guidelines offense level entitled to predominant weight, first in shaping, and then in reviewing, a district court's sentencing decision? Or should the Guidelines instead be treated as only one factor, entitled to no greater weight than the other half-dozen considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. ' 3553(a)?
Last November, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in two cases ' Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754 and Claiborne v. United States, No. 06-5618 ' that seemed likely to resolve this question. The main issue in Rita was whether it was consistent with Booker to accord a presumption of reasonableness to sentences within the range calculated under the Guidelines. Claiborne presented the related issue of whether appellate courts could require that a sentence constituting a substantial variance from the Guidelines be justified by extraordinary circumstances.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.