87 Cited authorities

Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (2015) Cited 14,254 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding residual clause unconstitutionally vague
Williams v. Taylor
529 U.S. 362 (2000) Cited 37,929 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,443 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (2007) Cited 17,796 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that we "must give due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553 factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance."
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,699 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,488 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Miller v. Alabama
567 U.S. 460 (2012) Cited 6,887 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders
Bousley v. United States
523 U.S. 614 (1998) Cited 13,691 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule announced in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472, which narrowed the scope of the term "use" in § 924(c), applied retroactively
Kimbrough v. United States
552 U.S. 85 (2007) Cited 3,937 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that variances can sometimes be based on the sentencing judge's disagreement with whether a guideline properly reflects the § 3553 factors
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,519 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 205,399 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Cited 129,989 times 129 Legal Analyses
Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions
Section 841 - Prohibited acts A
21 U.S.C. § 841 Cited 91,490 times 147 Legal Analyses
In § 841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself.
Section 3553 - Imposition of a sentence
18 U.S.C. § 3553 Cited 76,935 times 111 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"
Section 924 - Penalties
18 U.S.C. § 924 Cited 66,175 times 187 Legal Analyses
Holding that conviction for eluding police, under Maine statute which provides that "[w]hoever, after being requested or signaled to stop, attempts to elude a law enforcement officer by driving a vehicle at a reckless rate of speed which results in a high-speed chase between the operator's vehicle and any law enforcement vehicle using a blue light and siren is guilty" of a felony-level crime, involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)
Section 2 - Principals
18 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 23,926 times 57 Legal Analyses
Holding aiders and abettors punishable as principals under federal criminal law
Section 3742 - Review of a sentence
18 U.S.C. § 3742 Cited 10,934 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appellate court may reverse a sentence that is too low

Soto v. United State of America

87 Cited authorities

Holding residual clause unconstitutionally vague

Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

Holding that we "must give due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553 factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance."

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

Holding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders

Holding that the rule announced in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472, which narrowed the scope of the term "use" in § 924(c), applied retroactively

Holding that variances can sometimes be based on the sentencing judge's disagreement with whether a guideline properly reflects the § 3553 factors

Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions

In § 841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself.

Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"

Holding aiders and abettors punishable as principals under federal criminal law

Holding that the appellate court may reverse a sentence that is too low