Rita v. United States
- Decided
- June 21, 2007
- Docket
- 06-5754
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,739 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that an appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a within-guidelines sentence — United States v. Campos-Maldonado (2008)
- holding that an appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within a properly-calculated guidelines range — United States v. Rodriguez (2011)
- holding that “a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines” — United States v. Susi (2012)
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
[*341] Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
The federal courts of appeals review federal sentences and set aside those they find “unreasonable.” See, e. g., United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 261-263 (2005). Several Circuits have held that, when doing so, they will presume that a sentence imposed within a properly calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines range is a reasonable sentence. See, e. g., 177 Fed. Appx. 357, 358 (CA4 2006) (per curiam) (case below); see also United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 2006) (USSG or Guidelines). The most important question before us is whether the law permits the courts of appeals to use this presumption. We hold that it does.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007)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.