Show simple item record

Reasonableness Review After Booker

dc.contributor.authorKing, Nancy J., 1958-
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-04T17:21:41Z
dc.date.available2016-02-04T17:21:41Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.citation43 Hous. L. Rev. 325 (2006)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/7436
dc.descriptionarticle published in law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractAbout a year ago, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker declared a new standard for the appellate review of federal sentences-reasonableness. Justice Breyer, writing for the Court, asserted reassuringly that the reasonableness standard is not really new at all because judges had been applying it for years to review sentences for crimes lacking specific guidelines, sentences imposed after probation revocation, and, at least until 2003, sentences based upon departures from the recommended guideline range. Like most new legal standards that take shape case-by-case through the appellate process, reasonableness review is developing incrementally, creeping more clearly into view with each passing month. This Essay offers five observations and suggestions about this evolving standard.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (18 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherHouston Law Reviewen_US
dc.subject.lcshSentences (Criminal procedure) -- United Statesen_US
dc.titleReasonableness Review After Bookeren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record