14 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,436 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Koon v. United States
518 U.S. 81 (1996) Cited 2,594 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that " district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law."
Green v. United States
365 U.S. 301 (1961) Cited 578 times
Holding defendant's right to speak is personal, and not satisfied by defense counsel having the opportunity to speak
U.S. v. Martin
520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) Cited 392 times
Upholding a career offender's below-Guidelines sentence as a permissible deviation from the Guidelines' policy of punishing recidivism
U.S. v. Posada-Rios
158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 308 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if "he only participated at one level ... and only played a minor role"
United States v. Behrens
375 U.S. 162 (1963) Cited 129 times
Holding that prisoner was entitled to relief under § 2255 where his sentence was imposed outside of the prisoner's or counsel's presence
U.S. v. Inigo
925 F.2d 641 (3d Cir. 1991) Cited 102 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the evidence against certain defendants “was insufficient as to the crimes charged against them in the indictment ”
United States v. Pagan
33 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 1994) Cited 64 times
Holding that, "if the trial court fails to afford a defendant either the right of allocution conferred by Rule 32(C) or its functional equivalent, vacation of the ensuing sentence must follow automatically"
U.S. v. Cruz-Arroyo
461 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2006) Cited 34 times
Concluding that one “would have to believe in the Tooth Fairy” to believe a certain set of facts “merely coincidental”
U.S. v. Burgos-Andujar
275 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001) Cited 27 times
Concluding that the district court's alteration of a sentence during the same hearing did not violate Rule 35
Section 3553 - Imposition of a sentence
18 U.S.C. § 3553 Cited 76,838 times 111 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"

USA v. Wilkerson et al

14 Cited authorities

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

Holding that " district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law."

Holding defendant's right to speak is personal, and not satisfied by defense counsel having the opportunity to speak

Upholding a career offender's below-Guidelines sentence as a permissible deviation from the Guidelines' policy of punishing recidivism

Holding that a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if "he only participated at one level ... and only played a minor role"

Holding that prisoner was entitled to relief under § 2255 where his sentence was imposed outside of the prisoner's or counsel's presence

Holding that the evidence against certain defendants “was insufficient as to the crimes charged against them in the indictment ”

Holding that, "if the trial court fails to afford a defendant either the right of allocution conferred by Rule 32(C) or its functional equivalent, vacation of the ensuing sentence must follow automatically"

Concluding that one “would have to believe in the Tooth Fairy” to believe a certain set of facts “merely coincidental”

Concluding that the district court's alteration of a sentence during the same hearing did not violate Rule 35

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