Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Judges Need Competing Information To Rival The Misleading Guidelines At Sentencing, Wes R. Porter
Federal Judges Need Competing Information To Rival The Misleading Guidelines At Sentencing, Wes R. Porter
Publications
Federal district judges are stuck in a bad marriage with the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines after Booker v. Unittd States. While most of the sentencing debate centers around the struggle over judicial discretion and power to control sentencing outcomes, little attention is given to how poorly we inform the sentencing court's discretion. The information provided to the court at sentencing is lacking and outdated. The Booker Court freed district judges from the "mandatory guideline era" (1988-2005), but also required that district judges continue to calculate, "consult," and explain variances from the applicable guideline range. A sentencing court needs better, competing …
No Change In Sight For Sentencing Guidelines, Wes R. Porter
No Change In Sight For Sentencing Guidelines, Wes R. Porter
Publications
In the post-Booker era, the commission must reinvent itself to provide a useful tool for the courts in determining punishment, explains Wes Reber Porter of Golden Gate University School of Law.
Defining "Ordinary Prudential Doctrines" After Booker: Why The Limited Remand Is The Least Of Many Evils, Michael Guasco
Defining "Ordinary Prudential Doctrines" After Booker: Why The Limited Remand Is The Least Of Many Evils, Michael Guasco
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines the limited-remand approach in comparison with the approaches taken by the different circuits. Part I discusses the history of the Sentencing Guidelines and the cases, up to and including Booker, that completely changed the way the Sentencing Guidelines were used. Part II sets forth the history of the traditional plain error standard of review and the contemporary "Plain Error Problem." Part III examines the limited-remand approach and compares it with the approach taken in other circuits. Part IV argues that the limited-remand approach is the best of a list of bad possible choices but that the Ninth …
In Re Bandmann, Jesse W. Carter
In Re Bandmann, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An inmate's application for a writ of habeas corpus based upon an improper sentence being imposed was denied and the matter was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence.