37 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,617 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”
Alleyne v. United States
570 U.S. 99 (2013) Cited 8,125 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury
United States v. Cotton
535 U.S. 625 (2002) Cited 2,950 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the indictment's failure to allege facts about drug quantity, which increased the statutory maximum sentence, did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings because the proof of drug quantity was overwhelming
Oregon v. Ice
555 U.S. 160 (2009) Cited 1,251 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 do not apply to findings of fact necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences
Dolan v. U.S.
560 U.S. 605 (2010) Cited 387 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that jurisdictionally barring courts from conducting restitution proceedings after the deadline would be contrary to the statute's purpose of ensuring that victims of crime receive full restitution
Southern Union Co. v. United States
567 U.S. 343 (2012) Cited 348 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule in Apprendi applies to cases where significant criminal fines are imposed as well as where the sentence is imprisonment or death
Pasquantino v. U.S.
544 U.S. 349 (2005) Cited 272 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[v]aluable entitlement" to be paid taxes is property
U.S. v. Reifler
446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 284 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that treating coconspirators as "victims" who are entitled to restitution from fellow perpetrators is a "fundamental" error that "adversely reflect on the public reputation of judicial proceedings"
U.S. v. George
403 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2005) Cited 195 times
Holding that the district court erred in failing to consider the Guidelines, but that the error was harmless
Section 3664 - Procedure for issuance and enforcement of order of restitution
18 U.S.C. § 3664 Cited 17,963 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that government bears "burden of demonstrating" victim loss "as a result of the offense"
Section 3663 - Order of restitution
18 U.S.C. § 3663 Cited 6,861 times 9 Legal Analyses
Providing for the payment of restitution "to the State entity designated to administer crime victim assistance in the State in which the crime occurred"
Section 3663A - Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes
18 U.S.C. § 3663A Cited 5,161 times 36 Legal Analyses
Granting these categories of restitution to victims "in any case"
Section 16 - Crime of violence defined
18 U.S.C. § 16 Cited 3,471 times 62 Legal Analyses
Defining a crime of violence as ‘ an offense that has as an element the use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another’
Section 1111 - Murder
18 U.S.C. § 1111 Cited 2,109 times 7 Legal Analyses
Punishing homicide "[w]ithin the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"
Section 6928 - Federal enforcement
42 U.S.C. § 6928 Cited 341 times 12 Legal Analyses
Authorizing civil actions by the EPA Administrator

USA v. Slough et al

37 Cited authorities

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 “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

Holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury

Holding that the indictment's failure to allege facts about drug quantity, which increased the statutory maximum sentence, did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings because the proof of drug quantity was overwhelming

Holding that Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 do not apply to findings of fact necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences

Holding that jurisdictionally barring courts from conducting restitution proceedings after the deadline would be contrary to the statute's purpose of ensuring that victims of crime receive full restitution

Holding that the rule in Apprendi applies to cases where significant criminal fines are imposed as well as where the sentence is imprisonment or death

Holding that "[v]aluable entitlement" to be paid taxes is property

Holding that treating coconspirators as "victims" who are entitled to restitution from fellow perpetrators is a "fundamental" error that "adversely reflect on the public reputation of judicial proceedings"

Holding that the district court erred in failing to consider the Guidelines, but that the error was harmless

Holding that government bears "burden of demonstrating" victim loss "as a result of the offense"

Providing for the payment of restitution "to the State entity designated to administer crime victim assistance in the State in which the crime occurred"

Granting these categories of restitution to victims "in any case"

Defining a crime of violence as ‘ an offense that has as an element the use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another’

Punishing homicide "[w]ithin the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

Authorizing civil actions by the EPA Administrator