United States v. Carty
- Decided
- March 24, 2008
- Docket
- 05-10200, 05-30120
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,478 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “the district court must explain [the sentence] sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review” — United States v. Ressam (2010)
- holding that an explanation “in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole” — United States v. Rudd (2011)
- holding that the district court said enough at sentencing where it indicated it had reviewed the PSR and the sentencing memoranda and heard from the defense’s witnesses and counsel — United States v. Carter (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Opinion by Judge RYMER; Concurrence by Chief Judge KOZINKSKI; Concurrence by Judge SILVERMAN.
RYMER, Circuit Judge:
We ordered rehearing en banc in these cases to clarify our sentencing law in the wake of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).[1] Events overtook us, however, when the United States Supreme Court granted cer-tiorari in Claiborne v. United States and Rita v. United States. As the issues were similar to those in our appeals, we deferred submission pending the Court’s decisions.
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (2008)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.