Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gall 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

66 entries 6 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Booker US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  2. United States Vs. Myers US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1944
  3. Blakely Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2004
  4. Albemarle Paper Co. Vs. Moody US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  5. Roper Vs. Simmons US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 2005
  6. United States Vs. Howard US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1957
  7. Gall v. United
    Search
  8. States - 06-7949 (2007) Syllabus October Term, 2007 Gall V. United
    Search
  9. J., and Souter, J., filed concurring opinions. Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed dissenting opinions. Gall v. United
    Search
  10. States - 06-7949 (2007) Opinion of the Court Gall V. United
    Search
  11. Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-7949 Brian Michael Gall, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  12. of appeals should apply when reviewing the reasonableness of sentences imposed by district judges. The first, Rita v. United
    Search
  13. slip op., at 11). The second case, Claiborne v. United
    Search
  14. that constitutes a substantial variance from the Guidelines be justified by extraordinary circumstances. See Claiborne v. United
    Search
  15. s untimely death. Claiborne v. United
    Search
  16. II The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing. Relying on its earlier opinion in United States v. Claiborne
    Search
  17. F. 3d 884, 889 (CA8 2006) (quoting Claiborne, 439 F. 3d, at 481, in turn quoting United States v. Johnson
    Search
  18. justifications for departures from the Guidelines range is not consistent with our remedial opinion in United States v. Booker
    Search
  19. acknowledged that such a presumption would not be consistent with Booker. See Brief for United States in Rita v. United
    Search
  20. are nonetheless subject to several standard conditions that substantially restrict their liberty. See United States v. Knights
    Search
  21. quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin
    Search
  22. Koon v. United
    Search
  23. s decision. v. The
    Search
  24. s immaturity. The footnote includes an excerpt from our opinion in Roper v. Simmons
    Search
  25. conduct in the future. Indeed, his consideration of that factor finds support in our cases. See, e.g., Johnson v. Texas
    Search
  26. quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma
    Search
  27. s authority to deviate from the Guidelines range in a particular drug case, is addressed in Kimbrough v. United
    Search
  28. such a presumption of unreasonableness even prior to our decision in Rita . See, e.g. , United States v. Howard
    Search
  29. United States v. Matheny
    Search
  30. Judge in this case, Judge Pratt, has sentenced over 990 offenders over the course of his career. United States v. Likens
    Search
  31. Justice Scalia, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court. In Rita v. United
    Search
  32. in a sentencing scheme constitutionally indistinguishable from the mandatory Guidelines struck down in United States v. Booker
    Search
  33. not have been upheld but for the existence of a fact found by the sentencing judge and not by the jury. Gall v. United
    Search
  34. s companion case of Kimbrough v. United
    Search
  35. which follow United States v. Booker
    Search
  36. U. S. 220 (2005), and Rita v. United
    Search
  37. slip op., at 9). Gall v. United
    Search
  38. Justice Thomas, dissenting. Consistent with my dissenting opinion in Kimbrough v. United
    Search
  39. the District Court committed statutory error when it departed below the applicable Guidelines range. Gall v. United
    Search
  40. States - 06-7949 (2007) Alito, J., Dissenting Gall V. United
    Search
  41. dissenting. The fundamental question in this case is whether, under the remedial decision in United States v. Booker
    Search
  42. Id . , at 263. Indeed, a major theme of the remedial opinion, as well as our decision last Term in Rita v. United
    Search
  43. U. S. 405 , 416 (1975). Accord, United States v. Taylor
    Search
  44. Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  45. Taylor , supra , at 337. See Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  46. See also United States v. Oakland
    Search
  47. Opinion of the Court Gall V. United
    Search
  48. Brian Michael Gall, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  49. Rita v. United
    Search
  50. Claiborne v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial