Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Kimbrough Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 10, 2007

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

64 entries 2 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Booker US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  2. Cunningham Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2007
  3. Kimbrough v. United
    Search
  4. States - 06-6330 (2007) Syllabus October Term, 2007 Kimbrough V. United
    Search
  5. Under United States v. Booker
    Search
  6. within these brackets, and this Court declines to read any implicit directive into the congressional silence. See Jama v. Immigration
    Search
  7. h). This cautious reading of the 1986 Act draws force from Neal v. United
    Search
  8. Rita v. United
    Search
  9. Gall v. United
    Search
  10. joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed dissenting opinions. Kimbrough v. United
    Search
  11. States - 06-6330 (2007) Opinion of the Court Kimbrough V. United
    Search
  12. Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-6330 Derrick Kimbrough, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  13. s remedial opinion in United States v. Booker
    Search
  14. Fed. Appx., at 799 (citing United States v. Eura
    Search
  15. ratio in mind, we next consider the status of the Guidelines tied to the ratio after our decision in United States v. Booker
    Search
  16. Ibid. In sum, while the statute still requires a court to give respectful consideration to the Guidelines, see Gall v. United
    Search
  17. cf. Rita v. United
    Search
  18. within these brackets, and we decline to read any implicit directive into that congressional silence. See Jama v. Immigration
    Search
  19. for specified categories of offenders.). Our cautious reading of the 1986 Act draws force from Neal v. United
    Search
  20. paper) on which LSD is absorbed even though the carrier is usually far heavier than the LSD itself. See Chapman v. United
    Search
  21. amendment. Ordinarily, we resist reading congressional intent into congressional inaction. See Bob Jones Univ. v. United
    Search
  22. powder ratio itself. IV While rendering the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, United States v. Booker
    Search
  23. at 11. Congress established the Commission to formulate and constantly refine national sentencing standards. See Rita v. United
    Search
  24. United States v. Pruitt
    Search
  25. even in a mine-run case. Ibid. Cf. Tr. of Oral Arg. in Gall v. United
    Search
  26. s purposes, even in a mine-run case. v. Taking
    Search
  27. c)(1)(A). Footnote 2 Kimbrough was sentenced in April 2005, three months after our decision in Booker v. United
    Search
  28. to be served consecutively. Footnote 4 This question has divided the Courts of Appeals. Compare United States v. Pickett
    Search
  29. powder disparity in imposing a sentence), and United States v. Gunter
    Search
  30. CA3 2006) (same), with United States v. Leatch
    Search
  31. powder disparity), United States v. Johnson
    Search
  32. F. 3d 515, 522 (CA8 2007) (same), United States v. Castillo
    Search
  33. F. 3d 337, 361 (CA2 2006) (same), United States v. Williams
    Search
  34. F. 3d 1353, 1369 (CA11 2006) (same), United States v. Miller
    Search
  35. CA7 2006) (same), United States v. Eura
    Search
  36. CA4 2006) (same), and United States v. Pho
    Search
  37. a) factors. Footnote 14 At oral argument, the Government sought to distinguish Neal v. United
    Search
  38. embodied in the 1986 Act, even if the deviation produces some inconsistency. See Brief for United States in Neal v. United
    Search
  39. at or only two levels above those that correspond to the statutory minimums. See 2007 Report 25. Kimbrough v. United
    Search
  40. States - 06-6330 (2007) Scalia, J., Concurring Kimbrough V. United
    Search
  41. Ante, at 21 (quoting Rita v. United
    Search
  42. found by judge rather than jury. This, as we said in Booker, would violate the Sixth Amendment. Kimbrough v. United
    Search
  43. States - 06-6330 (2007) Thomas, J., Dissenting Kimbrough V. United
    Search
  44. Justice Thomas, dissenting. I continue to disagree with the remedy fashioned in United States v. Booker
    Search
  45. See Jama v. Immigration
    Search
  46. Neal v. United
    Search
  47. Opinion of the Court Kimbrough V. United
    Search
  48. Derrick Kimbrough, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  49. United States v. Eura
    Search
  50. See Chapman v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial