Citation network
Dillon Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 2010
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
-
Dillon v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 09-6338 (2010) Syllabus October Term, 2009 Dillon V. UnitedSearch
-
by the amendment, Dillon sought a variance below the amended Guidelines range, contending that United States v. BookerSearch
-
range. That exercise does not contravene the Sixth Amendment, even if it is informed by judge-found facts. Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., took no part in the decision of the case. Dillon v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 09-6338 (2010) Opinion of the Court Dillon V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-6338 Percy Dillon, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
b)(2) (Nov. 2009) (USSG). This case presents the question whether our decision in United States v. BookerSearch
-
Except in limited circumstances, district courts lacked discretion to depart from the Guidelines range. See Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
Kimbrough v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see also Braxton v. UnitedSearch
-
of such discretion does not contravene the Sixth Amendment even if it is informed by judge-found facts. Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
s reasoning in United States v. HicksSearch
-
c)(2) proceedings. See United States v. FoxSearch
-
CA9, Dec. 8, 2009). Dillon v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 09-6338 (2010) Stevens, J., Dissenting Dillon V. UnitedSearch
-
Dillon to 5 years of imprisonment. Id. , at 62. Had Dillon been sentenced after our decision in United States v. BookerSearch
-
a proposal that would have made the Guidelines only advisory. See Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
an unacceptable risk of depriving defendants of long-settled constitutional protections. See, e.g. , Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
have repeatedly emphasized the completely advisory nature of the Guidelines. See , e.g ., Cunningham v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Rita v. UnitedSearch
-
Gall v. UnitedSearch
-
Spears v. UnitedSearch
-
Mistretta , 488 U. S., at 372 (quoting J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. , at 382 (quoting INS v. ChadhaSearch
-
s precious resources. Cf. Barber v. ThomasSearch
-
Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Dillon V. UnitedSearch
-
Percy Dillon, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
See Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
Braxton v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HicksSearch
-
See United States v. FoxSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Dillon V. UnitedSearch
-
See Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
Cunningham v. CaliforniaSearch
-
J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Barber v. ThomasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial