Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unclear Guidelines From The Sentencing Commission And A Prejudiced Warden Result In (Un)Compassionate Release, Mary Trotter
Unclear Guidelines From The Sentencing Commission And A Prejudiced Warden Result In (Un)Compassionate Release, Mary Trotter
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
Congress first developed compassionate release in 1984, granting federal courts the authority to reduce sentences for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons. Compassionate release allows the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and inmates to apply for immediate early release on grounds of “particularly extraordinary or compelling circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing.” Questions remain about how the BOP and the courts grant compassionate release and whether the courts apply the compassionate release guidelines consistently. The uncertainty is due to the lack of clarity from the USSC to define “extraordinary or compelling circumstances,” …
The Johnson & Johnson Problem: The Supreme Court Limited The Armed Career Criminal Act's "Violent Felony" Provision—And Our Children Are Paying, Shelby Burns
Pepperdine Law Review
The Armed Career Criminal Act and United States Sentencing Guidelines prescribe sentence enhancements based upon a defendant’s prior convictions. In particular, these federal sentencing tools contain violent felony provisions that outline the requirements a state criminal statute must satisfy for a conviction to constitute a violent felony, making the convicted person eligible for a federal sentence enhancement. However, the Supreme Court’s holdings in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) severely limited the scope of both sentencing tools’ violent felony provisions, making it more difficult for certain crimes to …
The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii
The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Apprendi V. New Jersey, The Scaling Back Of The Sentencing Factor Revolution And The Resurrection Of Criminal Defendant Rights, How Far Is Too Far?, Analisa Swan
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Have We Come Full Circle? Judicial Sentencing Discretion Revived In Booker And Fanfan, Sandra D. Jordan
Have We Come Full Circle? Judicial Sentencing Discretion Revived In Booker And Fanfan, Sandra D. Jordan
Pepperdine Law Review
The much anticipated Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker and Fanfan has both invalidated the mandatory nature of the federal Sentencing Guidelines as well as restored judicial discretion for federal judges. With the Booker decision there is a renewed opportunity to correct some of the imbalance that came about as a result of the mandatory guidelines and the sentencing policies of the past twenty years. Booker has implications for all future sentencing as the power between the judiciary and the jury has been realigned and the power of the government has been reduced. Sentencing cannot accomplish legitimate goals …
Kimbrough And Gall: Taking Another "Crack" At Expanding Judicial Discretion Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chris Gaspard
Kimbrough And Gall: Taking Another "Crack" At Expanding Judicial Discretion Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chris Gaspard
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.